On Oct 29, 2007, at 3:46 PM, James Edward Gray II wrote: > On Oct 28, 2007, at 4:20 PM, James Edward Gray II wrote: > >> Now I need all of you email and Usenet experts to tell me if =20 >> that's a sane strategy. > > OK, here is the revised plan folks. Complain now if you see flaws: I forgot one detail=85 > * The gateway will only alter messages with a top-level content-=20 > type of multipart/alternative or multipart/related > * For both types of messages, if will search for the first text/=20 > plain part and promote that to the body, discarding other types =20 > (this is probably not the ideal handling multipart/related, but it =20 > seems to fit the messages we are seeing on Ruby Talk) * If we fail to find a text/plain part, the gateway will keep the =20 body as is, but force the content-type of the message to text/plain =20 in the hopes of getting the content through with some noise (it seems =20= this will be needed for very few messages, possibly none) > * All modified messages will begin with a disclaimer on the first line James Edward Gray II=