Mike Nolan wrote:
>
> Michael C. Berch wrote:
>
> > I just wish
> > there was more general support for MIME-compliant digests since
> > attachments break traditional digests. Although I am also sort of
> > wondering if the digest paradigm is also somewhat of a dinosaur at
> > this point.
>
> The reason for digests is still valid, people who want to receive their
> messages in bulk, whether that be daily or whenever some size threshold
> is reached. What's a dinosaur is the standard itself.
>
> Is there a MIME standard for digests?
It's been in MIME since the beginning (Section 7.2.4 of RFC1341).
The current reference is Section 5.1.5 of RFC2046. See
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/htbin/rfc/rfc2046.html
The earlier standard for digests was RFC934, but was not, to my
knowledge,
widely implemented.
As for the reason for digests, they were very popular when mail
transports were slow, less reliable, and often batch-oriented (like UUCP
polling). And mail reading programs were much less sophisticated in
terms of sorting messages. People who want to read messages from a
mailing list all together can easily sort them into a folder, or use a
selection function to pick them out of the inbox. I think the heyday
of digests is probably behind us.
--
Michael C. Berch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
