Re: Bogusly RFC2047'd "inline" for Content-Disposition

[Ken Hornstein]

>> >  Content-Disposition: =?utf-8?Q?inline?=
>...
>> It seems, however, we should simply follow RFC 2183 and treat it as an
>> "unknown" disposition (which means "default as attachment").
>
>I disagree.  :-)

I understand where you're coming from given a strict reading of the
ABNF, but ... it's not clear to me what's supposed to happen if you fail
to parse that header.  I know some people think that nmh should execute
"rm -rf /" if it ever sees an invalid message (not really, but it sure
seems like it sometimes), but we're alone in MUAs in our refusal to process
messages when we hit something invalid.  I would argue that the "unknown"
disposition covers the "cannot parse disposition" case.

--Ken