On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 04:48 +0000, Martin Pool wrote:
>
> You're already partly using mime here, so I think you might as well do
> it the rest of the way, by specifying a content-encoding for the
> attachments. They could be quoted-printable for things that are
> mostly text (like tracebacks) but need to be sent byte-for-byte, plain
> text for things like tracebacks, and base64 for tarballs.
Do you mean transfer encodings perhaps? They already do specify a
content encoding?
The thing breaking though, isn't actually the encoded content, its the
wrapper - the http chunking (which is a per-spec implementation of http
chunking, precisely to avoid implementing something new, or something
complex).
This isn't to say that you're wrong, just being clear about where the
failure is occuring.
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 04:48 +0000, Martin Pool wrote:
>
> You're already partly using mime here, so I think you might as well do
> it the rest of the way, by specifying a content-encoding for the
> attachments. They could be quoted-printable for things that are
> mostly text (like tracebacks) but need to be sent byte-for-byte, plain
> text for things like tracebacks, and base64 for tarballs.
Do you mean transfer encodings perhaps? They already do specify a
content encoding?
The thing breaking though, isn't actually the encoded content, its the
wrapper - the http chunking (which is a per-spec implementation of http
chunking, precisely to avoid implementing something new, or something
complex).
This isn't to say that you're wrong, just being clear about where the
failure is occuring.
-Rob