Ken wrote: > That message is a single text/plain part with a C-T-E of base64; I think > by definition the whole message body is supposed to be considered base64 > data.
I think the message is invalid. If we want to salvage what we can from it, I'm all for it. But that should be done carefully. > And how do we know that those characters are AFTER the base64 > data? For the purpose of interpreting RFC 2045, we do know in this case. > It sure seems to me from the RFC that it is permissible to ignore > characters that are not part of the base64 alphabet. "in base64-encoded data" > And really, I think > we are the only MUA that errors out in this way; just on pure usability > we aren't doing great. I agree. I think this is a job for mhfixmsg, not making the parser more lenient. David -- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
