Mime headers relating to fax images

[Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com>]

[The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gnu.emacs.gnus as well.]


Running cvs gnus from 983032537 
 (Also posted to ding in case it is alpha code related)

I recently started using an online outfit to send and recieve faxes by
email ( www.eFax.com ).  They perform an fax => to => email operation and send
it on to me.

The images they send me are *.tif images but they have mime content
headers that look like:

	--==__==__A8420XZ382__==__==
	Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="aeanvga9.tif"
	Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
	Content-Disposition: inline; filename="aeanvga9.tif"
	Content-MD5: hQDlIJsGMxaNw/DKPKZWmg==

[...] 

        --==__==__A8420XZ382__==__==--

This confuses my mailcap settings since *.tif is considered an image
far as I know.  I seem to recall seeing it listed as such in an RFC
once apon a time.

Is this something I should take up with eFax.com?  Or is this
compliant with what RFCs have to say about mime?

I have a hunch gnus can do something for this that I don't know how to
do, but currently, gnus only offers to save the file for me.

For the time being I'm using a `procmail' solution and have it
rewrite the Mimeheaders replacing "application/octet-stream" with
"image/tif"
        
	:0f
	*^Subject:.*page eFax
  ##  (line wrapped for mail  - Note extra backslash)
|sed 's/\(^Content-Type: \)\(application\/octet-stream\)\
\(; name=\"[^.]*\.tif\"\)/\1image\/tif\3/'

The header shown above becomes:
	Content-Type: image/tif; name="aeanvga9.tif"

I think this may lead to problems in the event something else that is
`application/octet-streem' is also mime encapsulated in the same
message, but at the present that isn't very likely.

Along with the mailcap setting:
        `image/tif; viewfax %s'

This seems to work without breaking anything I've noticed, and gnus
opens them neatly with `viewfax'

But I have a feeling there are bigger issues here.  Or is this just a
case of `eFax.com' blundering?