IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Sml] Re: Structured data wrapping in multipart/related cases

Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Sat, 19 July 2025 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
X-Original-To: sml@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: sml@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B36FB46162BC for <sml@mail2.ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Jul 2025 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gulbrandsen.priv.no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ioZ1wDj_CJBx for <sml@mail2.ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Jul 2025 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:91a8::3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E86946162B7 for <sml@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Jul 2025 05:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gulbrandsen.priv.no
Authentication-Results: stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gulbrandsen.priv.no
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gulbrandsen.priv.no; s=mail; t=1752926451; bh=Vh88IDVJiLxaBXFp4OTppsE3CBacgMZmZx/pFKfZ9CY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=IkcDYF7pdO96QxzlmysPkpLc89nn2+PIWbYcU7l8MegVvYYYbWqm+mcHH9aw93v9W Da7JrJIdNR/I7RswCKT65iBuUdhFeb+sJDLruh1G0r3ZtPJT4Q+1EI6tHZ9ml6CoRJ s39usQO5SO6ETx6bozvsQlQDCt48jzVYK+7kAk7Y=
Received: from stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:91a8::3]) by stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB8EC0091; Sat, 19 Jul 2025 13:00:51 +0100 (IST)
Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1752926450-4593-4592/9/6289; Sat, 19 Jul 2025 12:00:50 +0000
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: sml@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2025 14:00:50 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <40966a3f-e2fe-4f45-ad22-5f284c21752d@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
In-Reply-To: <b9de800f-117d-4292-8ccd-d40b1bc8e59a@audriga.com>
References: <b9de800f-117d-4292-8ccd-d40b1bc8e59a@audriga.com>
User-Agent: Trojita/v0.7-599-g1d6a1f7d; Qt/5.15.15; xcb; Linux; Devuan GNU/Linux 6 (excalibur/ceres)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: 5DJEAFP5EKEA2JZSIZK3I6SJXW3V2K27
X-Message-ID-Hash: 5DJEAFP5EKEA2JZSIZK3I6SJXW3V2K27
X-MailFrom: arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Sml] Re: Structured data wrapping in multipart/related cases
List-Id: Structured Email <sml.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sml/cHbzqbIeMnxSqpe9PGBWAdUDey4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sml>
List-Help: <mailto:sml-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:sml-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:sml@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:sml-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:sml-leave@ietf.org>

Hi,

I've seen code for a few different clients by now…

Clients use the multipart/alternative when they answer the question "which 
part best represents the whole of this message for display purposes?"

Clients don't use it for looking up URLs such as cid:123 or 
https://example.com (and RFC 2392 doesn't suggest that they should).

The two MIME structures are IMO only insignificantly different.

Arnt

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status