Eric Thomas wrote:
> Summary of problem resolution: Outlook Web Access appears to be sending
> plain text messages in base64 format, which is valid but not a good idea.
> Because 1.8d did not forward submitted messages in MIME format, they
> display as garbage, but should be distributed correctly if approved (not
> verified). In 1.8e the submitted messages are forwarded to the editor as
> an attachment and it should be possible to open them normally (not
> verified but works with eg Word). Obviously this does not apply if you
> use the NOMIME option to revert to 1.8d behaviour.

I have had one subscriber with the same problem, and now I think maybe I
should revise what I told her (there ought to be a setting somewhere for
the Content-Transfer-Encoding: ).

When I received the original item from Theresa Norton I deleted it as what
I saw was the base64. Then I read Eric's analysis and it reminded me of my
problem subscriber.  So, I looked up the item from the archives, it is
#27466, and played around with it and my UNIX Pine mail system. If I order
it as NOMIME I see what I saw when it was distributed to the list.  If I
allow the default NOMIME I can read the item.  I noticed, though, that with
NOMIME I could read:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
but with MIME that information seemed not to be present.  But then, I tried
toggling to full header display, and it affected the display of the
*attachment* as well as the message header itself, and the Content-type:,
etc. were now visible.  I didn't know it would do that. (Of course you can
also export and look and the material with an editor rather than the mail
reader and you'll also be able to see the 'missing' material.)  Just
throwing this out in case anyone wants to play with #27466 with his own
mail system(s).

Getting back to my subscriber using Outlook Web Access (OWA), she sent her
item to listname and it was sent to me for approval as base64.  Couldn't do
anything with that, but she also sent a copy of it to me in a note asking
if it had come through ok.  That I could work with, in my Pine system, so
edited it and it was posted, in her name, not mine.

I returned the approval item to her, explaining the base64 problem, and she
wrote back saying that at her university she used to have a choice of mail
systems, she used Eudora, I think, but that now everyone had to use OWA,
and the administrators told her OWA would send mail in only one way (her
note to me was also sent C-T-E: base64 but my system converted it, which I
did not notice until later).  I told her I thought she could change that,
should be a changeable option somewhere, but now I wonder.

So, what have we got here?  Has MicroSoft decided that base64 is the *only*
CTE permitted?  Or is it settable by the site administrators, but not the
user, like GroupWise with quoted-printable, and most of the administrators
go with the default?

Could it possibly be linked to use of charset="utf-8"?  I can't say I
recall seeing that character set used elsewhere, could have just missed it,
but both by OWA subscriber and Theresa Norton used it.  Could it be that if
you use that default character set in OWA, then CTE will be base64, but if
you change the character set to ASCII or some ISO the CTE will
automatically change?

Douglas Winship
[log in to unmask]