* multipart part does not have valid content-type [not found] <20100809231654.GZ31014@rzlab.ucr.edu> @ 2010-08-09 23:36 ` jidanni 2010-08-10 0:18 ` Katsumi Yamaoka 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: jidanni @ 2010-08-09 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ding; +Cc: owner, 591094 Dear Gnus team, I sent http://jidanni.org/test/591094.mbox.txt using gnus-version "Gnus v5.13" with http://jidanni.org/comp/configuration/ and then regarding http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=591094 >>>>> "DA" == Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes: DA> Your MUA is sending a multipart message with a part that doesn't have DA> a valid content-type; because the only content-type that is specified DA> is an image, and there isn't text content, one of our rules finds it DA> and discards it. [Various viruses do this, and we procmail them out DA> specifically.] DA> Please fix your MUA to set a Content-Type on all parts of a multipart DA> message. [While this is not strictly required by the RFC 1521, there's DA> no reason not to have one, and almost all MUAs have them.] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: multipart part does not have valid content-type 2010-08-09 23:36 ` multipart part does not have valid content-type jidanni @ 2010-08-10 0:18 ` Katsumi Yamaoka 2010-08-10 5:59 ` David Engster 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Katsumi Yamaoka @ 2010-08-10 0:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ding; +Cc: owner, 591094 jidanni@jidanni.org wrote: > Dear Gnus team, I sent http://jidanni.org/test/591094.mbox.txt using > gnus-version "Gnus v5.13" with http://jidanni.org/comp/configuration/ and > then regarding http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=591094 >>>>>> "DA" == Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes: DA> Your MUA is sending a multipart message with a part that doesn't have DA> a valid content-type; because the only content-type that is specified DA> is an image, and there isn't text content, one of our rules finds it DA> and discards it. [Various viruses do this, and we procmail them out DA> specifically.] DA> Please fix your MUA to set a Content-Type on all parts of a multipart DA> message. [While this is not strictly required by the RFC 1521, there's DA> no reason not to have one, and almost all MUAs have them.] (setq mml-insert-mime-headers-always t) and you will be able to verify that the Content-Type header is inserted in each text/plain part by typing `C-u C-c C-m P' before sending a multipart message to such a brain-damaged MUA. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: multipart part does not have valid content-type 2010-08-10 0:18 ` Katsumi Yamaoka @ 2010-08-10 5:59 ` David Engster 2010-08-28 22:19 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: David Engster @ 2010-08-10 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ding [stripped debian-bugs from CC] Katsumi Yamaoka writes: > jidanni@jidanni.org wrote: > >> Dear Gnus team, I sent http://jidanni.org/test/591094.mbox.txt using >> gnus-version "Gnus v5.13" with http://jidanni.org/comp/configuration/ and >> then regarding http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=591094 >>>>>>> "DA" == Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes: > > DA> Your MUA is sending a multipart message with a part that doesn't have > DA> a valid content-type; because the only content-type that is specified > DA> is an image, and there isn't text content, one of our rules finds it > DA> and discards it. [Various viruses do this, and we procmail them out > DA> specifically.] > > DA> Please fix your MUA to set a Content-Type on all parts of a multipart > DA> message. [While this is not strictly required by the RFC 1521, there's > DA> no reason not to have one, and almost all MUAs have them.] > > (setq mml-insert-mime-headers-always t) > > and you will be able to verify that the Content-Type header is > inserted in each text/plain part by typing `C-u C-c C-m P' before > sending a multipart message to such a brain-damaged MUA. I would vote for making this the default. I agree that it should be unnecessary; RFC 1521 does not "not strictly" require it for text/plain, it simply does not require it ("If no Content-Type is specified, this default is assumed.", with the default being text/plain,us-ascii). I find it strange that debian-bugs actually filters messages based on such very general notions. -David ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: multipart part does not have valid content-type 2010-08-10 5:59 ` David Engster @ 2010-08-28 22:19 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 2010-08-30 13:33 ` Ted Zlatanov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 2010-08-28 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ding David Engster <deng@randomsample.de> writes: > I would vote for making this the default. Since some things out there seem to not like having parts without explicit Content-Type headers, that might be best. However: > I agree that it should be unnecessary; RFC 1521 does not "not > strictly" require it for text/plain, it simply does not require it > ("If no Content-Type is specified, this default is assumed.", with the > default being text/plain,us-ascii). I find it strange that debian-bugs > actually filters messages based on such very general notions. It is really strange. Downright weird. I think debian-bugs should just fix their filters. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: multipart part does not have valid content-type 2010-08-28 22:19 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 2010-08-30 13:33 ` Ted Zlatanov 2010-08-30 17:01 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2010-08-30 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ding On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:19:43 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote: LMI> David Engster <deng@randomsample.de> writes: >> I would vote for making this the default. LMI> Since some things out there seem to not like having parts without LMI> explicit Content-Type headers, that might be best. However: >> I agree that it should be unnecessary; RFC 1521 does not "not >> strictly" require it for text/plain, it simply does not require it >> ("If no Content-Type is specified, this default is assumed.", with the >> default being text/plain,us-ascii). I find it strange that debian-bugs >> actually filters messages based on such very general notions. LMI> It is really strange. Downright weird. I think debian-bugs should just LMI> fix their filters. Let's just be explicit about it. What's a few more bytes between friends? Ted ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: multipart part does not have valid content-type 2010-08-30 13:33 ` Ted Zlatanov @ 2010-08-30 17:01 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 2010-08-30 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ding Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes: > Let's just be explicit about it. What's a few more bytes between > friends? True. I'll fix it. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-08-30 17:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20100809231654.GZ31014@rzlab.ucr.edu>
2010-08-09 23:36 ` multipart part does not have valid content-type jidanni
2010-08-10 0:18 ` Katsumi Yamaoka
2010-08-10 5:59 ` David Engster
2010-08-28 22:19 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2010-08-30 13:33 ` Ted Zlatanov
2010-08-30 17:01 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).