This forum is closed to new posts and
responses. Individual names altered for privacy purposes. The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a forum for customer support requests. Any customer support requests should be directed to the official HCL customer support channels below:
RE: Contact Matt Chant.. a business partner reported something similar ~Umberto Nongeroson 5.Nov.02 08:16 PM a Web browser Notes Client 6.0Windows XP
This is somewhat different, but I could see why the Notes MIME UA didn't pick up on the attachment.
The message is in two levels.
Level 1 is a 'related' multipart.
Level 2 is 2 alternate representations of the text body.
The missing attachment is part of the 'related' parts.
Usually, the way a related works is that the first 'root' part (which in this case is an alternate of 2, but that another problem altogether) contains identifiers that link to the following parts.
In this example, the logo part has a Content-ID, whch suggests there was a cid: tag in the HTML for it, but the missing attachment does not.
So, the question becomes, how should a MIME renderer behave when a Multpart/Related structure contains parts that are unreferenced. The sending MUA apears to believe that they should be treated as un-related attachment.
the Notes MUA seem to treat them as 'not required'. RFC 2112 is somewhat vague in this specific case, although it does have a general rider that the representation is up to the receiving side.
So, my personal take is this MIME is 'broken', potentialy in a couple of ways.
Multipart/Related requires a 'root' part that contains the cid: pointers to the related parts. There is no explicit prevention of using a Multipart/Alternative to provide this root part, but its unclear in this example if the text alternative contains the necessary cid: pointers. If it doesn't then you can make an argument that it is broken in that regard., as their structure could result in in a root part with no reference pointers
The next area of concern is whether or not the root part(s) contain a cid: for this 'missing' attachment.
If they do, then the bug is obvious, the corresponding Content-ID is missing from the MIME part of the 'attachment'.
If they do not, then they get into this grey area of how an unrelated part should be handled by the receiving MUA.
If they really wanted to include an unrelated attachment, and a text alternate body, then the correct MIME structure would be,
Return to top
. . . . . . RE: Contact Matt Chant.. a business... (~Pippy Asaweche... 5.Nov.02) 
Print this page
