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=