Re: A multiple bodypart multiple content type message

["Ned Freed, Postmaster" <NED@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree; the combination of RFC934 and RFC1049 seems to provide a
clear, concise way of handling multipart messages that does not suffer
from line count fragility or the ugliness of more complex encapsulation
schemes. The RFC934 part of this stuff is already called for by the
X.400 to RFC822 gateway RFCs 987 and 1148.

This technique is easy to generate, easy to parse, clearly readable, and
reasonably robust. About the only thing I can imagine going wrong with
such a system would be for the encapsulation boundaries to get long enough
to be wrapped by line wrapping mailers. However, since mailers that wrap
usually indent the wrapped part of the line, it does not present a problem
unless an active part of an encapsulation boundary wraps. For a mailer
that wraps at 80, that would in turn take something like 40 levels of
encapsulation to cause a problem. That's a level where I, for one, can
live with messages getting messed up!

This is an excellent proposal and I for one support it fully. It may be
necessary to cull some additional information from headers specified
in additional existing RFCs, plus perhaps some yet-to-be-written RFCs to
specify additional information not previously considered.

				Ned