Re: [apps-discuss] seeking pragmatic guidelines for content-type'structure': when to go top-level?

"t.petch" <> Fri, 11 November 2011 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1973E21F84DF for <>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:57:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.542
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0tO3B49Aanj0 for <>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:57:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3484721F84AC for <>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:57:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (HELO pc6) ([]) by with SMTP id FDD22908; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:56:56 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <019201cca0a2$ed2e91a0$>
From: "t.petch" <>
To: "Ned Freed" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <013101cc9f8b$2e1fac80$> <>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:51:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.4EBD7E07.0001, actions=tag
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50,
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0203.4EBD7E09.009C, ss=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Cc:, Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] seeking pragmatic guidelines for content-type'structure': when to go top-level?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:57:19 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ned Freed" <>
To: "t.petch" <>
Cc: <>et>; "Apps Discuss" <>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 1:46 AM
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave CROCKER" <>
> > To: "Apps Discuss" <>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:59 AM
> > > Folks,
> > >

> In other words, you changed the file extension to one that your application
> knows is associated with a font of some kind. So it tried to process it
> as such and got an error.
> And again, to the extent this has anything to do with top-level types, you
> just shown your application to be capable of handling previously unknown ones
> without falling over. And that's all you have shown.
> But if you want to actually perform a more complete test, you should have
> to add a font/* entry to your application's media type tables and then tested
> with content having that label. I've done that lots of times and previously
> unknown top-level types have never been a problem.
> > I think we need to know this for commonly deployed platforms before we can
> > it is not dangerous.
> If you regard the behavior you describe as dangerous, well, we appear to be
> working from very different definitions of the word "dangerous".

On the contrary, it suggested to me that the top level type was ignored and so
it did not matter what it was; ie the behaviour I see is safe, not dangerous.
If there is a danger, it might lie in cleverer software that took more notice of
the top level typ.

Just to be clear, I tried a variety of combinations, including ones where the
type was one I would expect the MUA to understand, eg 'image', with a filename
of eg .ttf, and the MUA preferred the file name extension to the type.  Or
perhaps it treats everything not text the same.

Tom Petch

> Ned