From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/34587 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Russ Allbery Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Mail digest and MIME headers Date: 06 Feb 2001 16:45:48 -0800 Organization: The Eyrie Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <2nu267dhtd.fsf@tiger.jia.vnet> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035170487 31196 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:21:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:21:27 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from karazm.math.uh.edu (karazm.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.1]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36471D049D for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:46:57 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by karazm.math.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAC13011; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:46:12 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Tue, 06 Feb 2001 18:45:33 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from mailhost.sclp.com (postfix@66-209.196.61.interliant.com [209.196.61.66] (may be forged)) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA06325 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:45:24 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.13.23]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9EABBD049D for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:45:53 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (qmail 707 invoked by uid 50); 7 Feb 2001 00:45:48 -0000 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Per Abrahamsen's message of "07 Feb 2001 00:04:29 +0100" User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Original-Lines: 16 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:34587 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:34587 Per Abrahamsen writes: > Russ Allbery writes: >> It's not strictly necessary, but it does say to other MUAs that you're >> guaranteeing that they can assume all of the standard defaults for the >> other MIME parameters, whereas if you leave off MIME-Version you're >> saying that the message may not comply with MIME and could be in an >> unknown character set. > Does this reasoning apply to nested messages, such as messages within > MIME digests? I'm fairly sure not. Good point. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)