On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Liviu Daia wrote:
Can you please name the official document (RFC, IETF draft or
whatever) that introduces the "name=..." parameter to "Content-Type:"?
It was rfc1341. It even says so in in section 7.4.1 of rfc1521, and in
section 4.5.1. of rfc2046. I can't imagine why ESR would be having
trouble finding it.
OTOH, preaching the use of obsolete forms for the sake of backward
compatibility can be pretty harmful.
This is not a matter of "backwards compatibily." We're not talking
about UA implementation here. It's a matter of the sender producing
the desired effect for as many recipients as possible; maximal
interoperability.
Somehow, you succeeded to get this backwards.
Your goals are different than mine. I don't care about stamping out the
old implementations. I care about getting the data there, by whatever
means necessary, in the form that will cause the least annoyance for my
recipients. That means sending *both* forms, not one or the other, in
this particular case.
Perhaps that comes from selling email client software and having to deal
with customer complaints when mailer Z sends something that is not
understood by mailer E (for suitable values of Z and E). Not only that,
but your "Scenario 1" rarely comes up, because as soon as a message from
an old UA arrives and the "new" UA loses track of the file name, some
customer screams and support for the old name= gets included again in the
next release.
This has now wandered far from procmail, so I won't copy the list on any
further discussion of this thread.