[usenet-format removed from recipients]
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Neff <tneff@panix.com> writes:
Tom> I guess it's now or never, so let me issue this lament from the
Tom> crumbling ramparts of the Net we once knew. :)
Tom> The purpose of a Digest, as I have known it over the years, is
Tom> to save transmission space and reduce mailbox clutter by
Tom> collecting a series of messages into a single, human readable
Tom> daily "omnibus" with redundant headers removed. A Digest often
Tom> functions like a daily newspaper or journal, with a list of
Tom> subjects and a neatly formatted body consisting of that day's
Tom> articles.
Tom> The so-called "MIME Digest" breaks every one of these desirable
Tom> features and substitutes a theory-driven mess, apparently so
Tom> that the people who invented "multipart/*" can say they found
Tom> another cool use for it.
as far as I can tell, all your objections are objections to the
behaviour of implementations rather than to the standard itself.
Specifically:
Tom> * Little or no space is saved, because boundary overhead and
Tom> repetitive headers often exceed message content.
Boundary overhead can be minimised if needed; the boundary for a MIME
digest can be, as Charles pointed out, the same sequence of 30 -'s
that is otherwise common. On the other hand, it can equally well be
a simple "--8=--"....
There is also no requirement for repetitive headers. MIME message/rfc822
specifically _does not_ require that all headers normally required in
mail be present; the only restriction is that at least one of From,
Subject, or Date be present.
This is a valid MIME digest:
From: news-wibble-faq@example.com
Newsgroups: news.answers,news.wibble
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--8=--"
Archive-Name: news/wibble-faq
[more FAQ secondary headers]
--8=--
This is the FAQ for news.wibble. Introductory text could go here.
--8=--
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------"
------------------------------
Subject: what is news.wibble for?
wibbling.
------------------------------
Subject: really?
no, this is just a stupid example.
--------------------------------
--8=--
The only overhead here compared to a minimal-digest format is three
extra separator lines and one internal header.
A conforming MIME client, presented with the above, will ignore the
FAQ secondary headers, and treat this as a single text part (the
introductory text) followed by a digest of messages.
Tom> * Content often mushrooms in size because instead of just
Tom> collecting plain text, it now becomes allowed (and eventually
Tom> expected) to include multiple formats (text/html/rtf etc) of
Tom> each message, plus attendant graphics etc.
This has nothing to do with the format. MIME provides for the
labelling of content, it does not and never has required that multiple
formats or inappropriate ones be used. In any case, existing
arrangements to block misplaced binary posts will probably suffice to
ensure that graphics not be included.
Tom> * Mailers with explicit support for "MIME Digests" handle them
Tom> in wildly disparate ways, so that no vestige of common reading
Tom> experience survives.
this is a fair point.
Tom> Practically everything the "MIME Digest" does can be done better
Tom> by receiving individual messages and routing them to a folder.
Tom> It is a solution in search of a problem.
no. It's clear from the evidence that digests are something that some
people want to use, and having a standard format for them is clearly
preferable to having a bunch of incompatible ad-hoc arrangements.
-- Andrew.************************************************************* To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@faqs.org as
unsubscribe faq-maintainers fill-in-your-email-address-here *************************************************************
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved