<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: Base64 problem.



* [15.Ağu.07 14:16 +0200] Thomas Roessler:
> On 2007-08-15 14:52:45 +0300, Sertaç Ö. Yıldız wrote:
> > 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.

But mutt is trying to decode base64 in contrary to (a) and (b) and
failing (IMHO) unnecessarily with an unhelpful message. 

> Indeed, it's serious garbage; anything mutt could do to deal
> "correctly" with this particular message would cause breakage
> elsewhere.

Is it "incorrect" to skip decoding if body part is multipart? I guess it
just tolerates the error here, and if the multipart was actually
encoding transformed (in spite of being expressly forbidden by the
spec), it would fail later anyway.

-- 
~sertaç