On 10/29/07, James Edward Gray II <james / grayproductions.net> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2007, at 11:35 PM, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > At Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:17:24 +0900,
> > Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote in [ruby-talk:276371]:
> >>>> I suspect you mean multipart/relative.
> >>>
> >>> I wasn't even aware of that format, to be honest.  I knew of
> >>> multipart/mixed (which our Usenet host will allow) and multipart/
> >>> alternative.  What is the purpose of multipart/relative?
> >>
> >> As the above.
> >
> > Oops, it was multipart/related, and I removed the paragraph
> > mentioned about it.  My mistake, sorry.
>
> I've been looking into this a little this morning.
>
> We do receive multipart/related messages, though they seem fairly
> uncommon compared to multipart/alternative.  They don't appear to be
> gated properly.  In fact, the mailing list archives don't even seem
> to show them.  For example 271796 was a multipart/related message and
> I can't find it in the archives or on comp.lang.ruby.
>
> To understand what we are dealing with here, I read:
>
>    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2387.html
>
> This type does not seem easy to deal with and I open to suggestions
> for the best strategy to use.
>
> James Edward Gray II

I haven't built enough clout in this group for my opinion to matter,
but here goes...

James did a great job with the gateway ... no doubt about that.
Should we even have it?  I absolutely think so.

The lowest common denominator for language is US-ASCII (is that a good
thing or bad thing? You decide).

Make sure, James and others, that you label the reformed
emails/postings with some kind of rejoinder that says something to the
effect of "mail/posting has been modified to make it available."

Todd