Re: capitulation to closed organizaions (was Re: rfc publication suggest

James P. Salsman wrote:


> [...]  suppose I sent you a 
> picture as an attachment to an email.  Would you like to know 
> whether it was attached from my camera or scanner (or filesystem)?
The human reading the email _might_ want to know, in which case the 
body of the message is the right place to put that information - not 
a header that they don't (and shouldn't) see.
The Content-Disposition header should not be about where the body 
part _came_from_ - it is about where it should _go_to_ (its 
Disposition, not its Source).
If you think that there is a reason to tell the MUA about the source 
(personally, I don't see what I would do with such a thing), then 
argue for a new header that does that (and get mired in the 
security/trust issues already cited elsewhere), but don't try to 
change the usage of Disposition.