- From: James M Galvin <galvin@eListX.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 10:49:14 -0500 (EST)
- To: ned.freed@mrochek.com
- Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
I just know I'm going to feel dumb when you point out the obvious but
frankly I don't get your point at all.
I've just finished processing the "preceding" header so I've got the
boundary marker and now I'm moving through the content. I simply
substitute some standard string for digest purposes for every boundary
marker as I come across it.
What am I missing?
Jim
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 19:50:15 -0800 (PST)
From: ned.freed@mrochek.com
To: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>,
James M Galvin <galvin@eListX.com>, discuss@apps.ietf.org
Subject: Re: canonical MIME headers
> Seems like it would also be fairly easy to abstract out multipart
> separators so as to be immune from them being re-written.
The problem is that the separator is buried in the preceeding header.
Handling that correctly ups the complexity considerability. IMO the
added complexity isn't worth it.
Ned
Received on Friday, 9 November 2001 10:46:50 UTC