Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822

> > yeah, maybe I misunderstood, but my take was that the problem was 
> > caused by the some intermediary which did not treat the 
> > message/rfc822 body part as an opaque object.
> If the body part were meant to be treated as an opaque object, it 
> should have been labelled application/octet-stream.
no.  you shouldn't be expected to hide useful information for the 
recipient just so that the mail system will be transparent.
> IMO, there are many good reasons for a mailing list processor to look 
> closely at the mime parts it receives. For example, it should try to 
> not retransmit bounces, virii, etc. Looking very closely at 
> message/rfc822 parts is a defensible choice.
there are plenty of reasons for looking at a message to decide whether 
to bounce or filter it.  there are far fewer valid reasons for altering 
a message.