Attachment test.

[Brian K. White]

On 3/22/2010 6:03 PM, Fairlight wrote:
> When asked his whereabouts on Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 01:29:25PM -0700,
> Bill Campbell took the fifth, drank it, and then slurred:
>> I am sending this message from Apple's Mail.app with the compose option
>> set to use ``rich text'' which should result in a multi-part text/html message.
>>
>> I want to see if it strips off the HTML section into an attachment.
>
> Can we just put in a procmail rule to dump main header content types
> text/html and mixed/alternative to /dev/null?  :)
>
> If there's an image involved, that -should- be only multipart/mixed.  The
> alternative subtype is -supposed- to be only when one part is an
> alternative for another.
>
> I suppose I don't care as much about alternative, but the html-only should
> just be tossed, IMNSHO.  My $0.02.

I think html provides a valuable feature in an ideal and non-heinous way 
to dumb clients that don't support it, much as mime-formatting does.

The fact that some people, even most people, abuse html in a way that is 
heinous to almost everything and everyone involved with the handling of 
that mail, is not html's fault, and I don't see why responsible users 
should be penalized by being denied the functionality.

Unless you are just saying that the rule here has been stated as plain 
text and so, since that's the rule, there is no possible harm to any 
legitimate messages or users in simply enforcing it? I can only weakly 
argue with that if that has ever actually been asserted as a hard rule. 
I can argue pretty strongly against zero-tolerance in almost any context 
in general and in this context in particular.

-- 
bkw