On Sun, 2009-03-01, Thomas Fernandez wrote: > On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 14:48:56 +0000 GMT (01/Mar/09, 21:48 +0700 GMT), > MFPA wrote: M>> Received the message via the list server and the copy cc'd to myself M>> this time.
M>> Guess what - the one via the list server has M>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" M>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Confirm. M>> while the other says M>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 M>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit M>> ? > Hm. I have no further ideas. I have noticed that the TBUDL list server makes several changes to each message that it forwards: Adding the List-Id, etc. header fields Adding the Current version... to the bottom of text/plain messages Adding a new Current version... part to multipart/mixed messages I also notice that the Content-Type and Content-Transfer-Encoding header fields are placed with the List-* fields in the header and not with the Mime-Version field where most clients place them. This leads me to believe that the list server builds a new message and then after deleting the existing Content-* fields recreates them by scanning the message for non-ascii characters and setting the the Content-Type field to us-ascii if that will suffice. There is some justification for this in the Email RFCs where it shows a preference for the simplest level necessary when encoding a message. In a separate pet peeve of mine, it seems that this much processing of each message would make it straightforward for the list server to determine whether a cut mark already exists and insert one just before the footer if necessary. This could reduce the fish traffic on this list considerably! <end peeve> :-) -- Bill McQuillan <[email protected]> Using The Bat! 2.11 on Windows XP 5.1 build 2600-Service Pack 2 ________________________________________________ Current version is 4.1.11 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
