I don't think there's any really sensible default cookie for multipart
messages, as far as backward compatibility goes. I don't mind choosing
an arbitrary default, however. How about the infamousd
"CRISPIN-IS-"
Gee. Did someone say default cookie? But alas, that is the whole
reason we specify a cookie, any static cookie will cause cookie-clash
when forwarding, or including any other message with the default
cookie. Looks like we need a default cookie with a default quoting
convention, and well, looks like a whole new default cookie protocol.
If we use, as Mark tried to imply, a 934 compablity cookie rule, then
we have all the 934 evils including the ever expanding cookie!
Another easier algorithm is "if cookie clash, go to the bakery and buy
a different cookie" don't use the default. Someone else can explain
what it means to have lazy programmers and a simple default......
Greg V.