[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] Mailing list archives busticated

From: Earl Hood
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Mailing list archives busticated
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 21:54:41 -0500

On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:

> I don't look at the headers of every message I get, but I did check my
> mailbox for examples when I was writing the RFC 2231 parser.  I have
> never seen an extended MIME parameter on a Content-Type header "in the
> wild", but I do see them all of the time on Content-Disposition headers
> (when the filenames get really long).

Wonder what MUAs are nice to do that?

>From what I get, at least from my coworkers that mostly use Outlook,
parts are not used, even for very long filenames.

At a message I just looked at, Outlook appears to wrap the value itself
vs using parts.  For example:

  Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=
          "This is a really long filename that outlook just appears to
   wrap instead of breaking up into parts.txt"

Of course, I hate Outlook with the passion of a thousand suns.  It does
seems that the popular MUAs do not fully leverage all of MIME and are
not good about following open standards.

In my somewhat-organized test data I have been using, I did not have a
sample that used attribute parts.  Well, I have one now ;)


P.S. MHonArc does check the content-disposition header, but for security
reasons, mhonarc ignores it by default.  A person can enable honoring
the filename, but they better understand the risks when doing so.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]