On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote: > I don't look at the headers of every message I get, but I did check my > mailbox for examples when I was writing the RFC 2231 parser. I have > never seen an extended MIME parameter on a Content-Type header "in the > wild", but I do see them all of the time on Content-Disposition headers > (when the filenames get really long).
Wonder what MUAs are nice to do that? >From what I get, at least from my coworkers that mostly use Outlook, parts are not used, even for very long filenames. At a message I just looked at, Outlook appears to wrap the value itself vs using parts. For example: Content-Disposition: attachment; filename= "This is a really long filename that outlook just appears to wrap instead of breaking up into parts.txt" Of course, I hate Outlook with the passion of a thousand suns. It does seems that the popular MUAs do not fully leverage all of MIME and are not good about following open standards. In my somewhat-organized test data I have been using, I did not have a sample that used attribute parts. Well, I have one now ;) --ewh P.S. MHonArc does check the content-disposition header, but for security reasons, mhonarc ignores it by default. A person can enable honoring the filename, but they better understand the risks when doing so. _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers