on *12.02.22* at *20:10:52* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC* to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"Re: Directly include binary data in messages"*.
RS> MIME includes a standardized type value that is non-ambiguous for a
I know. Still not related to your main point, that there should be no file name ;)
RS> reason: filenames are not the best methods for determining a file's RS> content type. Is it .jpeg, .JPEG, .jpg, .jpe, .jfif, or .jif? All of RS> these are valid JPEG file extensions, but there's only one corresponding RS> MIME-type (aka Internet media type): image/jpeg.
From the past when I was implementing (among many other things) a web server, I also know that this is in fact not fully true because there are also a lot of ambiguities when it comes to MIME types in the real world.
Here, the clear intention would be to either go with the existing standards (maybe pick a subset) or do something very simple. The thing is, that using existing standards, DOS-based software will be practically not able to include such functionality as library support does not exist (for obvoious reasons) and MIME handling alone can easily be mode code that a whole simple approach to the problem.
Also, I am not sure that we really want to essentially deliver HTML email with embedded pictures over fido.
Regards, Tim --- WinPoint 399.1 * Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)
