- From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 07:22:29 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
- Cc: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, IETF working group on HTML in e-mail <mhtml@segate.sunet.se>
At 15.05 -0800 98-01-28, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > I've always found this one of the most annoying things about how > MIME was specified. If all message types must obey the same rules > as an RFC 822 message, then why would you ever need more than > message/rfc822? I thought the difference between message/rfc822 and message/http was that the outermost heading, the header immediately following the Content-Type:Message heading, was to be formatted and interpreted according to e-mail versus http rules. For example, a message/http header can contain an "Age:" header field, but such a field is undefined in a message/rfc822 heading. However, it is probably not permitted to include Content-Encoding or Transfer-Encoding in headings transported through e-mail, even if the heading is of type message/http, since those encoding format may not be permitted in e-mail? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme
Received on Sunday, 1 February 1998 22:55:21 UTC