Actually, I think John is overly worried about (6) -- the use of
Content-type. The ATTMAIL people used content-type in a way that is
almost-completely-conformant with RFC 1049. I, at least, was completely
aware of ATTMAIL's usage of Content-type: text. In crafting the
RFC-XXXX extensions to content-type, I tried very hard to make sure that
it was compatible both with RFC 1049 and with all the other usages that
I know of. As of the last draft, I believe, ATTMAIL's usage will cause
no problems -- it will be assumed to be in the default character set of
US-ASCII, that's all. And of course Content-Length will be ignored.
Beyond that, I agree that some of those headers are indeed problematic,
but not in any way that is specific to RFC-XXXX. -- Nathaniel