Mark Allums wrote:
> Barclay, Daniel wrote:
>
> > [...] could
> > > be said for your HTML-spewing MUA.
> >
> > What that heck are you talking about? My message was sent in plain
> > text, not
> > HTML.
>
> It's a dual-format message encoded in MIME base64 format.
Where the heck are you seeing base64 encoding?
In both the copy of my message written directly to my Sent folder and the copy
I got back from my mail server (because of my BCC header addressing myself),
there was _no_ base64 encoding of anything. (That's from viewing the raw message
using SeaMonkey's View Source command AND from double-checking with emacs.)
Are you ascribing to my MUA (and my configuration and use of it) some
transformation that something else is performing?
(The only type of copy I can't find is a copy echoed back from the mailing list
(to see what arrived at the other end). Do Debian lists not send copies back to
the original sender?)
> So, two
> things are wrong with the format of your message. One, it's both plain
> text and HTML,
Similarly: Where are you seeing HTML? There is _no_ HTML in what my MUA sent
out.
> ... and two, it's MIME encoded.
What do you mean by "MIME encoded"? That's ambiguous. MIME involves a lot of
things. My message has no transfer encoding other than a straight
one-byte-per-character encoding (and in fact it's the simplest, plainest
ASCII-based encoding: "7-bit"). My message doesn't have multiple parts, so
there's no encoding of multiple parts.
> The latter is not necessarily a deal-breaker, if everyone has a modern
> mail-reading client, ...
Surely you're not saying that people object to the MIME-Version header field
(ignorable by MUAs that don't understand it), right?
Daniel