NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/mail/mime/111

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-12 | 1.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!ddj
From: [e-mail] (Doug DeJulio)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mime
Subject: Re: Using MIME without extra mail headers
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:27:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0r79G.2BM.2
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News System)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: itc.cs.cmu.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>If the problem were only about gateways, it would be more easily fixable.
>But it is not, it's about domains. What is a gateway supposed to do to a
>MIME message destined for a domain that does not support the inclusion
>of MIME headers in the "header part" (something well-defined in RFC 822
>but by no means universal) of messages?  Perhaps people with limited
>experience of heterogenous mail domains should ponder this question before
>leaping in with the suggestion that it's all about gateways.

Well, in those domains, something other than pure MIME is going to
have to be the solution.  Perhaps the business with the headers at the
beginning of the body would work.  BUT, I would assert that this is
still a gateway problem.  The gatewaying software should take a
correct MIME message and convert it into something that the broken
domain can understand, and it should make sure that any hacked-up
format is converted back into pure MIME before sending it back out
through the gateway again.  The fact that the MIME standard is well
defined should simplify the task of writing such a "smart gateway"
somewhat.
--
Doug DeJulio
[e-mail]