On 16 June 2010 11:12, Robert Collins <email address hidden> wrote:
> Its important that we capture the new facilities the multipart encoding added:
> - content type
> - attachment name (perhaps generalised to content disposition this time around)
> - multiple attachments
> - binary safe
>
> I have no attachment to any particular escaping mechanism used, but the
> quopri proposal you've supplied here seems to be lacking three of the
> four things I've listed here, while delivering the fourth very nicely :)
>
> Something combining the two would be most excellent.
Actually it did (in the branch) have the content-type, but needs 2 and 3.
Maybe there is a more mime-y way to give the attachment name.
On 16 June 2010 11:12, Robert Collins <email address hidden> wrote:
> Its important that we capture the new facilities the multipart encoding added:
> - content type
> - attachment name (perhaps generalised to content disposition this time around)
> - multiple attachments
> - binary safe
>
> I have no attachment to any particular escaping mechanism used, but the
> quopri proposal you've supplied here seems to be lacking three of the
> four things I've listed here, while delivering the fourth very nicely :)
>
> Something combining the two would be most excellent.
Actually it did (in the branch) have the content-type, but needs 2 and 3.
Maybe there is a more mime-y way to give the attachment name.
--
Martin