Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
having to descend an extra level of encapsulation in most
MUAs is extremely annoying.
With my MUA that works as expected even for multipart/digest
with a text/plain part, or the similar multipart/mixed with
a text/plain and one or more message/rfc822.
It does not work so well if the sender added something like
Content-Disposition: attachment; name=default.eml, but only
very stupid MUAs do this.
I have *never* received an rfc822 where the resender
resisted the temptation to add some insipid comment.
Spamcop gets several hundred message/rfc822 (mostly in the
form of a multipart/digest) per day from me, and of course I
don't add funny texts in this case... ;-)
All my abuse reports are Content-Type: message/rfc822, and
my actual complaint "text" is the subject. The body is the
offending message/rfc822 with all headers (okay, in the case
of worms I replace the B64 stuff etc.)
multipart/digest is "now" (204x) even a MUST for MIME, it's
not a "who knows" like some other MIME types. I'd have no
problem if my MUA offered Resent-* to forward a single mail,
but the MIME solution is more flexible and IMHO much better.
Bye, Frank