Pete Turnbull <pete_at_dunnington.u-net.com> wrote:
> So do I -- "be generous in what you accept and strict in what you
> create" or similar words. On the other hand, RFC1049 doesn't allow the
> "Content-type:" that Tony's mail contains, nor does RFC822, and as you
> imply, Tony's mail isn't MIME-compliant -- so it's broken too.
Content-type: was something of a mess for a while; I remember the RFC
822 extensions group going round on it for a while on the way to
hashing out what became MIME.
(plays with google a bit) Ah good, someone kept the ietf-822 mailing
list traffic from the early 1990s.
<
http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/old-archive1/msg00001.html> for an
example. I gather from that that there was an RFC draft in the early
1990s in which "Content-type: text" was permitted, and that by that
time it was considered ambiguous.
-Frank McConnell
Received on Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:39:49 GMT