Re: Base64 problem.
On 2007-08-15 14:52:45 +0300, Sertaç Ö. Yıldız wrote:
>> That is a multipart/mixed message with a multipart/alternative
>> message inside of it. However, the first text portion of the
>> multipart/alternative portion appears to be improperly labeled
>> as base64.
> Not the text part, the multipart/alternative part itself is labeled as
> base64. And AFAIK, that's not permitted for multipart types.
That base64 has nothing at all to do on the multipart/alternative
body part: (a) the content of that body part isn't actually base64
encoded, and (b) if it was, that would be breaking a MUST NOT in the
relevant spec.
>> So is this message being generated incorrectly?
> Yes.
Indeed, it's serious garbage; anything mutt could do to deal
"correctly" with this particular message would cause breakage
elsewhere.
>> Should mutt handle things differently instead of just bombing
>> out?
> Yes, IMHO. I'm using the attached patch for this.
Not for this kind of message, actually.
--
Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>