Hello.
> | Even more offtopic, but...
> | this way you'll lose the original composition ( attachments,
> | multipart-alternatives, original headers and such) of the
> | original message, which in some cases defeats the purpose of forwarding.
>
> Sending "eml" format to a non-Microsoft user defeats the purpose of
> communication. There are ways to tell Mozilla to behave like a normal
> Internet mail program, but since I don't use it I don't know the
> specific incantation. (it is the "attachment" option right by the
> "inline" option, IIRC)
Hmm. Now let's see.
The type of the attachment is determined by its Content-Type header.
Now what's wrong with Mozilla sending a multipart/message-rfc822 attachment
having a Content-Disposition: attachment; name="ForwardedMessage.eml" ?
Extension can have some relevance to the actual content type for the MUA if
and only if the stated content-type is 'application/octet-stream' if I'm
not mistaken.
> I think that "inline" option is there so that you can quote and edit
> the message you are forwarding.
That's ok, but to preserve original message headers you'll have to view message
source, then copy/paste and pray that they won't get mangled by all sorts of
line-wrapping.
> | If you're after malicious content in the attachments, you'll be better off
> | with some trial version of antivirus,
>
> Those things aren't malicious on my system, they're just plain
> annoying. It would also be annoying if someone sent me a sample of
> their /dev/random (the usefulness of the two is identical).
That's allright with me, but I happen to think that junking things basing only
on their names can bring too many false positives.
