Inline SPAM warnings {Scanned by HJMS}

[Furnish, Trever G]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Anderson [mailto:ka at PACIFIC.NET]
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:24 AM
> To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: Inline SPAM warnings {Scanned by HJMS}
>
> Because it's crap. It also has a default setting to hide attachments.
> You can turn this off by going (in Outlook Express) to Tools, Options,
> Security tab. This is presumably to protect the user from the
> fact that
> it's crap and will likely "run code of attacker's choice" if
> you were to
> allow Outlook to display the attachments.

ROTFL. :-)  Yes, I know it's crap.  But that's beside the point.

The question is whether multipart/report is more appropriate as a
content-type for the message than multipart/digest.

>From RFC 1892

1. The Multipart/Report MIME content-type

The Multipart/Report MIME content-type is a general "family" or
"container" type for electronic mail reports of any kind. Although
this memo defines only the use of the Multipart/Report content-type
with respect to delivery status reports, mail processing programs
will benefit if a single content-type is used to for all kinds of
reports.

And from RFC 2046

5.1.5.  Digest Subtype

   ...
   Note: Though it is possible to specify a Content-Type value for a
   body part in a digest which is other than "message/rfc822", such as a
   "text/plain" part containing a description of the material in the
   digest, actually doing so is undesireble. The "multipart/digest"
   Content-Type is intended to be used to send collections of messages.

Personally I would consider the messages produced by "attach and deliver" to
be "reports", not "collections of messages".  The inline part is a "report"
about an attached message, meaning I would consider this to be a nice
candidate for changing in a future release of MS.

-t.