Andrzej Adam Filip wrote, On 11/4/07 7:00 AM: > I suggested using message/rfc822 in "top level" headers *BUT* I see no > good enough reason to change current *time tested* implementation.
I must be misunderstanding what time tested implementation you are talking about. If you mail a spam message to SpamCop as an attachment as they request, then you are sending a message with a message/rfc822 attachment. The top level description is that it is multipart/mixed, there may be an empty text/plain part that they will ignore, and the spam message is in a message/rfc822 section. Oh, are you proposing that the headers look like this? Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:13:41 +1200 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: SpamCop reporting address Subject: spam report Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: return path header of spam message Received: from first received line in spam message ... rest of spam message ... goes here Can you point to some documentation from SpamCop that this will work and that they officially support it so it will continue to work? I'm not arguing with you now, but I don't know where the formats they will take are documented other than where they request spam be sent as attachments, and that means multipart/mixed. -- sidney
