Re: Base64 problem.
- To: mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Base64 problem.
- From: Sertaç Ö. Yıldız <sertac.liste@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:20:01 +0300
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=HsXn9Gn2oSBRuxT5Xr3ZUX4tVenMabBI6GNPnYd7n7Wi4Rsa5xnHZ6mFXo8GA7KIxnnFFM+OSZEAU3bd4E/8y7MetMpoXbAEJtE8XQVV93PEgDjL5uj6FP+JHShAEMkln4Vxm8Hr/MGoDcQAiU4ow1FWo4dWE0rB4lVHIYq+LPI=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=lHnwZhlcwXkkxJVQm1SD9hQj87YEph+1IaMS5d9WTCtWnKp6k1d1N1oZ7qrS2U96WOphDGpgbc5Oxv6Y59suRcdiVGHGBvr85kNGJP8XBT1CvtvBF3426fK8r/mX7xPyidIdeGPk9QCdQDk3WOarpY7nJ62yHUswW/uhzXyzWdU=
- In-reply-to: <20070815121650.GR14409@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-post: <mailto:mutt-users@mutt.org>
- List-unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@mutt.org, body only "unsubscribe mutt-users"
- Mail-followup-to: mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
- References: <20070815003127.GA490@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070815115245.GA7071@kerouac> <20070815121650.GR14409@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
* [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