I am somewhat confused by the Content-Disposition header discussion.
There is an existing RFC draft that defines mapping between MIME and the
X.400 file transfer extended body part (draft-freed-ftbp-00.txt) - and
it defines the header "Content-Pathname:" to hold the X.400 pathname
attribute. This attribute is nothing more than the file name and
Rens' and Steve's draft proposes placing the file name in the
Content-Disposition header along with information on presentation.
It looks like two places have been defined to hold what is essentially
the same information. There may be character set and syntax issues to
deal with, but I don't think we need more than one place to hold the file
name associated with a body part.
My preference is to see the file name included in a separate header as
defined in Ned's draft. Is there any advantage to placing it in the
Content-Disposition header? The X.400 element can include
a full directory path, which is probably best ignored by a receiving
AT&T EasyLink Services