Re: Content-Length harmful
On Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 12:31:26AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > http://www.netscape.com/eng/mozilla/2.0/relnotes/demo/content-length.html
> > The latter is a classic.
> I think that the best comment was at the end: "You can't win." I prefer
> Content-Length for the simple reason that it's the easiest way to get
> unmunged mail in a near-mbox format. If anyone has a better solution,
> I'd love to hear it...
Actually, I really enjoyed reading through that page and was completely
convinced against Content-Length by those arguments. The big thing: if I
change my mailbox file with a text editor (yes, I do this sometimes), I have
to count bytes and change the header.
Maildir is a nice way to solve this.
Quoted-printable encoding is another possibility. The idea would be that
the MTA quotes the leading 'F' character into something else, and the MUA
decodes it. Hmm, I wonder if that would work. I don't remember if QP is
supposed to be decoded at the MTA layer.
Of course, you have to do lots of MIME munging to make anything decode QP