If anyone has some information I would greatly appreciate a response.
Leo Berz
be...@ix.netcom.com
Sorry Leo for picking your posting to launch into my semi-flame, but ...
This seems to bring up the bigger question of why the major online
service providers don't appear willing to provide MIME support. We
contacted AOL, Compuserve and Prodigy and this is what we found out:
Q. Do they support MIME Base64 Encoding:
Compuserve - No
AOL - No
Prodigy - No
Q. If No, will they in the future:
Compuserve - No (Future upgrade for auto uuen/decode w/in 1 year)
AOL - Maybe w/in 1 year
Prodigy - No (Won't even consider it)
Q. What encoding schemes to they currently support:
Compuserve - uuen/decode only
AOL - MIME Base32 & uuen/decode
Prodigy - uuen/decode
Q. To whom can we give feedback to regarding this issue:
Compuserve - 7000...@compuserve.com
AOL - stev...@aol.com
Prodigy - snailmail to corporate headquarters
It appears that the major online vendors are hesitant to move to
MIME. I am assuming that the email market size of these online
service providers is greater than that of the MIME market. If it
isn't, then it soon will be.
Perhaps the AOL, Compuserve and Prodigy powers can be pressured
into jumping on the MIME bandwagon.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domain: ma...@tc.fluke.COM (Mark Nagel) Voice: +1 206 356 6051
UUCP: microsoft!fluke!mark or sun!fluke!mark
Fax: +1 206 356 6033
Snail: Fluke Corporation / P.O. Box 9090 / Everett WA 98206
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Mail doesn't provide MIME support. Microsoft Exchange may,
although it isn't clear what form this support will take.
There are a variety of solutions available from various third parties.
I'd recommend that you peruse the MIME FAQ for this list -- it should
suggest several starting points.
Ned
"MIME Base32"? There ain't no such thing.
I know that. The information was obtained second-party from these vendors. It
shows that they don't have a clue :-(
-mark
Perhaps it was a half-baked implementation of base64? <VBG>
---------------------------------------------
Lindsay Mathieson, a Kiwi in Brisbane, Australia
Using MailCat for Win32 Beta Vs 1.50
On December 3, 1995, 6:01:45 pm
Windows 4.0, DOS unknown
Team OS/2
For best results, use SET BUGS=OFF
NF> Microsoft Mail doesn't provide MIME support. Microsoft Exchange
NF> may, although it isn't clear what form this support will take.
It understands MIME-encoded attachments. The problem is in the
text/plain messages you send out. The mail composer doesn't break
lines, when the message hits the MIME conversion stuff, the line
length triggers the use of Q-P, even if the message was composed in
pure US-ASCII.
When this is recived by people without MIME-compatible MUAs, they see
a lot of =^J sequences and a lot of =20 sequences, and it looks broken
(the ususal complaint about Q-P from people without MIME-compatible
MUAs).
But if you *have* a MIME-compatible MUA, the message *still* looks
broken, because then you see it as one long line (line wrapped on my
MUA (mh-e + tm), other MUAs may handle it differently).
Oh well!
Huh. The version that I wrote -- the one that went out in Exchange Beta 1 --
had a lot of work in the line wrapping logic to make sure it was done right,
as well as a lot of work to make sure that non-MIME MUAs didn't see MIME-ish
things unless they had to. Non-MIME users *hate* gettign QP text.
Of course, Microsoft pitched Worldtalk's gateway in Exchange Beta 2 (for some
very sensible reasons, actually), and with it all the efforts at friendliness
and interoperability went out the window....
<csg>
>> It understands MIME-encoded attachments. The problem is in the text/plain
>> messages you send out. The mail composer doesn't break lines, when the
>> message hits the MIME conversion stuff, the line length triggers the use of
>> Q-P, even if the message was composed in pure US-ASCII.
CSG> Huh. The version that I wrote -- the one that went out in
CSG> Exchange Beta 1 -- had a lot of work in the line wrapping logic
CSG> to make sure it was done right, as well as a lot of work to make
CSG> sure that non-MIME MUAs didn't see MIME-ish things unless they
CSG> had to. Non-MIME users *hate* gettign QP text.
True!
CSG> Of course, Microsoft pitched Worldtalk's gateway in Exchange
CSG> Beta 2 (for some very sensible reasons, actually), and with it
CSG> all the efforts at friendliness and interoperability went out
CSG> the window....
Sigh! Sooo close...
Any chance of getting the line wrapping code back in again? The stuff
generated by the MS Exchange of the release version is a headache even
*with* a MIME compatible MUA.
I end up hand editing every message I'm receiving from MS Exchange.
- Steinar
>I am working with a company who is using Microsoft Mail, although we
>can send and receive E-mail messages I can not send them attachments as
>they are not set up for or can not receive MIME attachments. Does
>anyone know if this is possible, either in set-up, upgrade or other
>inexpensive options?
Don't quote me on this, but I think it may have to do with the email
gateway. Although MS-Mail supports MIME, the gateway may be something
other than the latest MS-Mail SMTP Gateway. If this is the case, an
upgrade of the SMTP gateway may be in order.
Hope this helps.
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Claudio Sousa, PC Analyst
Credit Union Central of Manitoba
PO BOX 9900, 215 Garry Street
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 3E2
Ph: (204) 985-4862 Fax: (204) 957-0849
Email: cso...@magic.mb.ca
-------------------------------------------