RFC2822 windows attachment

Martin Konold 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)

- entryid
- reply-date
- sent-date
- importance (richer than the plain imap flag)
- sent-representing
- received representing.

Joon: What do you think? What other properties do you need?

-- martin

"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 mailing list