On 23 May 2011, John R. Levine wrote: > Seems to me that if someone were that desperate to get a signed message > through a downgraded path, they should wrap the whole thing in a > base64 encoded message/rfc822 mime part and send it that way.
That's explicitly forbidden by RFC 2046. Some idiot lazy MUA writer sought a guarantee that his MUA would be able to look inside forwarded-as-attachment mail without having to handle multiple layers of encoding. He got it. Thus, no multipart or message/rfc822 object can be base64 or QP encoded. Because of that arrogant decision, a downconversion for a message containing a message/rfc822 element under 8bit CTE (which *is* legal), simply isn't defined. ---- Michael Deutschmann <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
