RFC2822 windows attachment
martin.konold at erfrakon.de
Fri Jan 28 02:21:21 CET 2005
Am Freitag, 14. Januar 2005 09:22 schrieb Bernhard Reiter:
> > > Joon: Does something speak against using such a header?
> > > It might eben be easier for some tasks? Like searching for flags?
> > The length of the header and the number of headers may present a problem.
> > Adding the attachment is much cleaner, but adding headers is an option.
> > What do you perceive are the problems of adding an attachment to the mail
> > message?
> The disadvantage would be that this is not common to use attachements
> for data specific to a singe MUA in RFC2822 emails, but in headers it is.
Can we come forward with this topic. I really think that going with headers is
much cleaner as it allows interoperability with future kontact versions. E.g.
the importance or the reply-date are imho nice features which can benefit the
user in cross platform usage szenarios. (E.g a shared folder for a helpdesk)
- importance (richer than the plain imap flag)
- received representing.
Joon: What do you think? What other properties do you need?
"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the
President next year." -- 2004, Wally O'Dell - CEO of Diebold, Inc.
e r f r a k o n - Stuttgart, Germany
Erlewein, Frank, Konold & Partner - Beratende Ingenieure und Physiker
More information about the format