Morning, folks... (*sigh*) I'm catching grief for the multipart/digest MIME type again, apparently from someone with Outlook 2000 who either doesn't know how to configure it, or doesn't know it's damaged in not allowing him to see the messages the way he wants. Anyway, I removed this guy from the digest version of the list he was complaining about, which solves my problem with this guy, but I need a little supporting ammunition for the future when this happens again and someone ELSE whines that I should be sending the digested version of the list in plain text. Can anyone point me to an RFC or document that defines the multipart/digest MIME type (I did a search, but can't seem to find any)? Does anyone have instructions for the various Microsoft packages (the problem children are almost universally using OE or Outlook, since apparently the others, like the Eudora I use, have no problem setting a little checkbox to receive MIME digests as attachments, or not) to have them not explode a digest? Any advice on information I should put in a form letter when I get these annoying complaints from users? Yeah, I'm a little tired and cranky, and so apologize for the tone, and would appreciate any list-admin advice on how to deal with these folks, who can be even more self-assuredly obnoxious than those who want me to munge my Reply-To. ;) Charlie
Charlie Summers <charlie@lofcom.com> writes: ...
Can anyone point me to an RFC or document that defines the multipart/digest MIME type (I did a search, but can't seem to find any)?
rfc2046: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types Philip Guenther
At 2:44 AM -0500 3/9/01, Philip Guenther is rumored to have typed:
rfc2046: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types
MUCH thanks! But...um... It looks to this novice that the way SmartList handles the TOC may be incorrect for this MIME type, at least according to the RFC. Section 5.1.5 appears to suggest embedding multipart/digest _inside_ a multipart/mixed with the TOC outside it (which is kinda ugly, IMHO, but still). But then, certainly in 1996, no one expected web pages to routinely be sent to mailing lists, either... Charlie
At 01:52 -0500 09 Mar 2001, Charlie Summers <charlie@lofcom.com> wrote:
whines that I should be sending the digested version of the list in plain text.
If your list doesn't block or strip HTML messages, you might want to try giving them what they ask for. Once they get a message that displays with the raw HTML (and maybe a base64 encoded image), I bet they'd change their mind. -- Aaron Schrab aaron@schrab.com http://www.execpc.com/~aarons/ "...this does not mean that some of us should not want, in a rather dispassionate sort of way, to put a bullet through csh's head." -- Larry Wall
At 2:56 AM -0500 3/9/01, Aaron Schrab is rumored to have typed:
If your list doesn't block or strip HTML messages, you might want to try giving them what they ask for. Once they get a message that displays with the raw HTML (and maybe a base64 encoded image), I bet they'd change their mind.
Actually, the main complaint I hear is the reverse - that their mailer explodes the digest into seperate messages (usually accompanied with, "this defeats the purpose of a Digest!!!!!"), when they want to read it linerally...something I frankly prefer, too, but can easily set in Eudora by unchecking "Receive MIME digests as attachments," a checkbox that doesn't seem to be available in the Microsoft products, so far as I can tell. (*sigh*). But yeah, the next step _is_ to begin unblocking those annoying, unnecessary, and bandwidth-wasting HTML messages. I also have a digest-only list that I took over after the death of the original maintainer with a couple thousand subs I want to change _back_ to the proper MIME type (he had it as text/plain, and I didn't want to add even more the list membership who was coping with all the other changes) - so I'm going to need to be prepared for the inevitable backlash that will hit. Charlie
participants (3)
-
Aaron Schrab -
Charlie Summers -
Philip Guenther