Re: [Extra] Is this a plausible IMAP extension ?

Arnt Gulbrandsen <> Thu, 28 February 2019 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F689130F04 for <>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:08:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N_Zhw37P17fY for <>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:08:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:91a8::3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FD0B12F1AB for <>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:08:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:91a8::3]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51924C05E3; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 18:09:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1551377397; bh=Chtygh/p2KVktBtN6LrcbU+Cy2u8V58vg0AEsL+E5gY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=hS8RPKW1jhy5AW8+J+CdpOslfIPsYiH+v3c3U+CSfK/YWqc3UJ8wWCbsSviH3db14 96zZRfwUFrZzKMlwJPRf4eqk5+Zob58+CJNPOKM55bR3pwYUf+QdVW+8y7iv7yOQlD BILiL2gokTiSvnLcWl3GvqPu2z1BfC8uMY7o1Ykc=
Received: from by (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1551377396-2663-2661/9/152; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 18:09:56 +0000
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 19:08:04 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <20190228161213.D1442200F6FF92@ary.local>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1902262150050.14048@ary.local> <> <> <> <20190228015702.5B252200F6CDEE@ary.local> <> <20190228161213.D1442200F6FF92@ary.local>
User-Agent: Trojita/0.7; Qt/5.7.1; xcb; Linux; Devuan GNU/Linux 2.0 (ascii)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Is this a plausible IMAP extension ?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 18:08:11 -0000

On Thursday 28 February 2019 17:12:13 CET, John Levine wrote:
> Urrgh.  Most of the mail that's likely to have a logo is 
> multipart/alternative
> and I'm not interested in wrapping contents in yet more MIME 
> layers, which would
> among other things break any existing DKIM signatures.

You don't need that. Look at 3676. It doesn't wrap, it marks. In this case, 
either mark the top-level multipart with the content-id of the logo

  content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary=foo; logo=bar

(the logo will mostly have a content-id because the html refers to it) or 
mark the bodypart with the logo

  content-type: image/jpeg; content-id=bar; logo

or mark the logo's disposition

  content-disposition: attachment; logo

It's not obvious to me which way is the best. Is being a logo part of the 
type or rather part of the disposition? I don't even want o discuss that.

All are immutable though, since they're part of the message, and the info 
is returned as part of the FETCH BODYSTRUCTURE command most/all clients 
use. Very easy to implement in typical clients, and zero work for the