On 3/11/99 at 4:01 PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
in other words, does the fact that the initial CRLF is attached to
the boundary marker and not part of the preceding body part, mean
that the preceding body part (in this case) doesn't end with a CRLF?
Yes, that is absolutely clear from the top of page 20 of RFC 2046,
section 5.1.1.
Now consider this body part (ending with a soft line break):
--foo
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
=01=02=03=
--foo
is the canonical form of this body part also (hex) 01 02 03?
or is this just illegal because there's no following CRLF?
I believe it's illegal. I don't see any ambiguity. There is no CRLF
following "03=" in that body part.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
Eudora Engineering - QUALCOMM Incorporated
Ph: (217)337-6377 or (619)651-4478, Fax: (619)651-1102