Jered Floyd | 23 Sep 2002 19:00
Favicon

Re: MIME-Version Header Field

"Eamon O'Tuathail" <eamon.otuathail <at> clipcode.com> writes:

> Do BEEP messages require the MIME-Version header field?
> 
> RFC 2045 states:
> 
>  "Messages composed in accordance with this document MUST include such
>   a header field, with the following verbatim text:
> 
>      MIME-Version: 1.0"
> 
> As BEEP carries MIME messages, one could argue that MIME-Version is a
> mandatory header. 

(For those playing along with the home game, this is RFC 2045 
Section 4, "MIME-Version Header Field".)

I interpret the "Messages" in the quoted sentence to mean "RFC 822
messages", since this RFC is all w.r.t Internet message bodies.
While BEEP messages are structured according to the rules of MIME,
I don't consider them to be RFC 2045's "Internet message bodies"
and thus are exempt from needing the MIME-Version header.

All existing specifications and implementations of which I am aware
do not use the MIME-Version header.

--Jered
ned.freed | 23 Sep 2002 23:36

Re: MIME-Version Header Field

> "Eamon O'Tuathail" <eamon.otuathail <at> clipcode.com> writes:

> > Do BEEP messages require the MIME-Version header field?
> >
> > RFC 2045 states:
> >
> >  "Messages composed in accordance with this document MUST include such
> >   a header field, with the following verbatim text:
> >
> >      MIME-Version: 1.0"
> >
> > As BEEP carries MIME messages, one could argue that MIME-Version is a
> > mandatory header.

> (For those playing along with the home game, this is RFC 2045
> Section 4, "MIME-Version Header Field".)

> I interpret the "Messages" in the quoted sentence to mean "RFC 822
> messages", since this RFC is all w.r.t Internet message bodies.
> While BEEP messages are structured according to the rules of MIME,
> I don't consider them to be RFC 2045's "Internet message bodies"
> and thus are exempt from needing the MIME-Version header.

Exactly right and even supported by a careful reading of RFC 2045.

				Ned

Gmane