On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
I don't look at the headers of every message I get, but I did check my
mailbox for examples when I was writing the RFC 2231 parser. I have
never seen an extended MIME parameter on a Content-Type header "in the
wild", but I do see them all of the time on Content-Disposition headers
(when the filenames get really long).
Wonder what MUAs are nice to do that?
From what I get, at least from my coworkers that mostly use Outlook,
parts are not used, even for very long filenames.
At a message I just looked at, Outlook appears to wrap the value itself
vs using parts. For example:
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=
"This is a really long filename that outlook just appears to
wrap instead of breaking up into parts.txt"
Of course, I hate Outlook with the passion of a thousand suns. It does
seems that the popular MUAs do not fully leverage all of MIME and are
not good about following open standards.
In my somewhat-organized test data I have been using, I did not have a
sample that used attribute parts. Well, I have one now ;)
--ewh
P.S. MHonArc does check the content-disposition header, but for security
reasons, mhonarc ignores it by default. A person can enable honoring
the filename, but they better understand the risks when doing so.
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers