Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That is, there is a multipart message, encapsulated within a single part > message, encapsulated within a single part message.
Right. I thought that's what I was saying. > [] entire [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [HEADER] header of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [TEXT] text of [EMAIL PROTECTED] (single part) > [1] entire [EMAIL PROTECTED], same as [TEXT] > [1.HEADER] header of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [1.TEXT] text of [EMAIL PROTECTED] (single part) > [1.1] entire [EMAIL PROTECTED], same as [1.TEXT] > [1.1.HEADER] header of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [1.1.TEXT] text of [EMAIL PROTECTED] (multipart) > [1.1.1] test1.txt part of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [1.1.2] test2.txt part of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, good. > Now, let's suppose that the first part of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > was itself a (nested) multipart with two parts, that is: Got it. Thanks! Now if there is a text/plain message encapsulated in a message/rfc822 (single part) message, so that [1] is the same as [TEXT], then is [1.MIME] the same as [HEADER]? Or is [x.MIME] only meaningful for parts of a multipart message? paul
