Re: Content-Transfer-Encoding "packet"

I thought 'content-transfer-encoding' was appropriate, but might
prefer to name it more explicitly as 'binary-packet'.  You wouldn't
send c-t-e base64 in a binary-packet encoding just as you can't nest
other MIME c-t-e.

(On a related thought, I've been thinking of a new MIME top-level type
called 'container', where 'container/zip' or 'container/tar' or
'container/bento' might be allowable registered types. The
interpretation is that a container contains one or more other objects
packed together in a binary encoding; the goal is to forstall the
unfortunate current use of multipart/zip.)