Marc Mutz writes:
IMO, priority should be on preserving the information for "modern"
MUAs, not on enhancing readability for legacy MUAs[1].
The issue arises only when a broken MTA is used and the message is
harmed. When that happens, which of the following is more likely?
a) the end user is using the latest version of kmail
b) the end user is using a MUA selected by whoever bought the broken MTA
I place my money on b.
(I would also argue that guarding against text corruption isn't the role
of f=f, it's the role of multipart/signed.)
--Arnt