From: Claus Färber (list-ietf-wg-apps-usefor@faerber.muc.de)
Date: Mon Apr 01 2002 - 05:21:00 CST
Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> schrieb/wrote:
> It is also possible to convey that additional information
> via other standard MIME extension headers, e.g.
> Content-Disposition and Content-Features.
No. All Content-* headers describe the same entity. If you chosse
yEnc to be a Content-Type, then Content-Disposition describes the
yEnc file.
It is ok, of course, to add mor parameters to the application/
[x-]yyencoded type but it should not conflict with the (non-
standard but frequently used) filename parameter. internal-
filename might be a better choice.
> There would almost certainly be interoperability problems;
> a minor defect of 2045 and its predecessors is that no
> domain is defined in the case of extension (none have yet
> appeared) or experimental tokens used as Content-Transfer-Encoding
> values.
The problem is, of course, that applications have to scan the body
anyway: Due to bugs in implementation, the domain implied by the
CTE is sometimes incorrect (i.e. 7bit instead of 8bit).
Claus
-- ------------------------ http://www.faerber.muc.de/ ------------------------ OpenPGP: DSS 1024/639680F0 E7A8 AADB 6C8A 2450 67EA AF68 48A5 0E63 6396 80F0