Re: Bogusly RFC2047'd "inline" for Content-Disposition

Hi Ken,

> >  Content-Disposition: =?utf-8?Q?inline?=
...
> It seems, however, we should simply follow RFC 2183 and treat it as an
> "unknown" disposition (which means "default as attachment").

I disagree.  :-)

Given RFC 2183's grammar,

     disposition := "Content-Disposition" ":"
                    disposition-type
                    *(";" disposition-parm)

     disposition-type := "inline"
                       / "attachment"
                       / extension-token
                       ; values are not case-sensitive

coupled with RFC 2045,

     extension-token := ietf-token / x-token

     ietf-token := <An extension token defined by a
                    standards-track RFC and registered
                    with IANA.>

     x-token := <The two characters "X-" or "x-" followed, with
                 no intervening white space, by any token>

that field does not parse so RFC 2183's

    Unrecognized disposition types should be treated as `attachment'.

does not apply as we do not have a disposition type, recognised or not.

-- 
Cheers, Ralph.