Re: Recursive look up of base in outer headers

Einar Stefferud <> Wed, 03 September 1997 19:28 UTC

Received: from cnri by id aa17690; 3 Sep 97 15:28 EDT
Received: from (services.Bunyip.Com []) by (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTPid PAA00192; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:31:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA28467 for uri-out; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:15:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (mocha.Bunyip.Com []) by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA28456 for <>; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:14:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA25163 for uri@services; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:12:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA25160 for <>; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:12:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from by id aa17639; 3 Sep 97 12:01 PDT
Received: from by id aa09397; 3 Sep 97 10:11 PDT
Subject: Re: Recursive look up of base in outer headers
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 03 Sep 1997 03:15:33 +0200." <v03110702b0326a2b4fe3@[]>
From: Einar Stefferud <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 10:11:33 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Precedence: bulk

Hi All -- 

I think that it might b e a good idea to clarify the language a bit
more to be very explicit about what is a MIME header, per my
introduction of a concept called a "MIME HEADER SET"

Or, perhaps the thrase "same Content-Heading" has been difined
somewhere to mean this same thing.  But, I doubt this.

It seems to me that there is some ambiguity about what to call a
collection of MIME (Contnet-*) Headers that are found grouped together
without a <CRLFCRLF> separator between them.

I will leave it to the various editors of our various standards RFCs
to figure out how to clarify this, but it seems to me that much of our
current discussion among experts stems from this exact confusion.

I think we should take advantage of having just now sorted this out,
and apply the lesson to our documents.


From Jacob Palme's message Wed, 3 Sep 1997 03:15:33 +0200:
}The MHTML standard says that the order of headers within the same Content-
}Heading has no effect on the interpretation of the headers (in the case
}of the headers Content-Base and Content-Location). From what you say,
}there does not seem to be any reason to change this.