4) End of data in Base 64 is not tagged
Proposed Solution: Add an optional "====" to the end of the base64
encoding
Status: Accepted as a bug fix
Hmmm...I must have missed something, but I don't see why the end of data
can't be determined by the boundary marker. If a single-content message
needs a specific end of data for its content, enclose it in a
multipart/mixed.
Put another way, why is base64 any different from q-p (or for that matter,
any of the other encodings) in this regard? It seems like q-p is more
vulnerable than base64 here, since CRLFs are significant in q-p (unless
preceeded by an =), and are ignored in base64.
Keith