On 2007-08-15 14:52:45 +0300, Sertaç Ö. Yıldız wrote: >> That is a multipart/mixed message with a multipart/alternative >> message inside of it. However, the first text portion of the >> multipart/alternative portion appears to be improperly labeled >> as base64.
> Not the text part, the multipart/alternative part itself is labeled as > base64. And AFAIK, that's not permitted for multipart types. That base64 has nothing at all to do on the multipart/alternative body part: (a) the content of that body part isn't actually base64 encoded, and (b) if it was, that would be breaking a MUST NOT in the relevant spec. >> So is this message being generated incorrectly? > Yes. Indeed, it's serious garbage; anything mutt could do to deal "correctly" with this particular message would cause breakage elsewhere. >> Should mutt handle things differently instead of just bombing >> out? > Yes, IMHO. I'm using the attached patch for this. Not for this kind of message, actually. -- Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
