* 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).