Re: multipart clarifications/nits

[hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

< We're caught between a rock and a hard place on this one, I'm afraid.
< While it is true that the CRLF belongs to the boundary marker and not to
< the preceeding part, actually binding it this way in the BNF leads to the
< old problem where the first boundary marker's CRLF is separate from the
< CRLF that comes after the message header, and then we're back to the
< problem where two CRLFs are required at the beginning of the multipart
< object by the grammar.
<
< I've toyed with the idea of making the first boundary special. The best
< I've been able to come up with is:

I agree: make the first boundary special.

					Tony Hansen
			    hansen@pegasus.att.com, tony@attmail.com
				att!pegasus!hansen, attmail!tony