| I'm taken with the multipart/archive idea, but I'm not sure that it is
| well-enough specified to add it to the RFC at this late date. It sounds
| to me like the kind of thing that can easily be added later, with its
| own RFC.
|
| But ANY new content-types will be a very hard sell for me at this point.
I don't see multipart/archive as a separate content-type at all.
I feel the whole idea for the multipart message format with binary
encodings and all is the RFC-822 equivalent of tar(5) or whatever.
Many months ago I suggested a "Filename:" header exactly for this
purpose...
ttl