There's no reason for them to have required the MIME-Version header just
to be allowed to have a Content-Type header. In fact the Content-Type
header antedates this MIME stuff altogether.
>using MIME has some definitive advantages over sending
>"untyped random 7-bit data" [or even 8-bit, at your own peril].
This could be (and is) accomplished with a Content-Type header; there's
still no need for the MIME-Version header. In a MIME message, the
MIME-Version header still carries absolutely no information. A mail reader
or news reader could base all of its actions on the Content-Type header.
I'm not saying that they DO, I'm not saying that they WILL work without
the MIME-Version header; I'm saying that they COULD work without it, that
the standard COULD have been written that way, it adds zero information.
The content of the MIME-Version header is a constant string!
>You can be minimally MIME-compliant by using +only+ the Mime-Version
>header but none of the Content-* headers, in which case, again, your
>posting should be 7bit us-ascii with no overlong lines, which is the
>default interpretation in the absence of any Content-* headers.)
This accomplishes absolutely nothing. If your message is 7-bit us-ascii
data with no long lines, there will be no misinterpretation WITHOUT the
MIME-Version header. Being "MIME-compliant" is of no value in itself.
This header adds nothing and will not help any software in decoding the
message.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved