Re: Issues outstanding

[Dirk Nimmich <nimmich@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> In <41C87921.5000404@xxxxxxxxx> Alexey Melnikov 
>> <alexey.melnikov-usefor@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
[...]
>>> 6. Remove filename parameter from the Archive header.
>>
>> Had probably better wait until we have decided on Injection-Info.
>> If a MIME filename= parameter is considered good enough for the
>> Content-Disposition header (where MUAs regularly need to parse
>> and act upon it), then I can't see why it is not suitable for
>> Archive (where it only needs to be interpreted by a few special
>> purpose archiving agents).
>>
> I have not seen any argument in support of the "filename"
> parameter.  If there is no support - we don't need to document it.

I haven't had the time to follow the discussion on this topic, but
the original intent was to replace the Archive-Name pseudo header
(or to have a formal way to represent it). If the semantics for
Content-Disposition's filename parameter were the same, that would
be alright; but since Archive-Names routinely contain (logical) path
information which is to be deleted for security reasons in
Content-Disposition's filename parameter I doubt it is.