[kde] Re: RFC question

2010-11-10 Thread gene heskett
On Wednesday, November 10, 2010 01:47:25 pm Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. did opine: > In <201011101225.05209.ghesk...@wdtv.com>, gene heskett wrote: > >Greetings; > > > >Is it 'legal' for a single MIME'd message containing many parts, to re- > >specify the > > > > boundary=string > > > >more than once

[kde] Re: RFC question

2010-11-10 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
In <201011101225.05209.ghesk...@wdtv.com>, gene heskett wrote: >Greetings; > >Is it 'legal' for a single MIME'd message containing many parts, to re- >specify the > boundary=string >more than once in the same message? It is possible to "nest" multipart/* types--same or different. Each of these m

[kde] RFC question

2010-11-10 Thread gene heskett
Greetings; Is it 'legal' for a single MIME'd message containing many parts, to re- specify the boundary=string more than once in the same message? I looked at but it doesn't appear to discuss it. Is this the definitive MIME rfc today? This question genera

[kde] Re: Minimized apps dissapear - more info at end of post

2010-11-10 Thread Duncan
Bob Stia posted on Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:50:19 -0500 as excerpted: > Let's take this one step further. Isn't it logical that whatever > happened was common to the two existing users? That are supposed to be > separate and individual? One that effects a customized KDE for one user > and another for s