[ This is cc-ed to comp.mail.mime and comp.mail.headers - to cut to the
chase and ignore the followup part of this thread, the question is:
What is the interpretation of duplicate, but different headers ?
in this instance, two different Content-Type: field values. ]
> Apologies to everyone who is getting tired of seeing the same message from
> Steve... The last posting was an unexpected side-effect of me Resending
> the message to myself, and not realizing that the msg already contained a
> Resent-To: pine-info...
malformed MIME message I sent out. It seems to have gone out on the
mailing list, but it looks like it was dropped from News distribution.
I was sure I recalled some mention in rfc1521 about how to interpretQuote:> (This is arguably a bug in either sendmail or Pine, but it may be tough to
> fix, since I don't think RFC822 specifies any significance to header
multiple occurrences of the same header. But searching thru the document,
I can't find any such note. Just my overactive imagination ?
( I also failed to find a note on this in 822, but I only skipped thru
them both quicky, and tried searching for "duplicate" and a half dozen
other likely words. )
Is there a rule to resolve the interpretation of:
since it is possible to generate duplicate fields with Pine, and
I expect with other mail software ( especially automatic gateways,
remailers, etc. ). Or is this defined as illegal ? Or is it just
Except for the cases where it manufactured the malformed
Content-Type: header lines, Pine appears to use the first
occurence and ignore later ones.
I was also seem to have acquired the folk belief that *all* To:'s
are significant, but I expect that I'm just overgeneralizing some
past experience with sendmail. :-)
- UVA Department of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics