A body part is NOT to be interpreted as actually being an RFC 822 message. To begin with, NO header fields are actually required in body parts. A body part that starts with a blank line, therefore, is allowed and is a body part for which all default values are to be assumed. In such a case, the absence of a Content-Type header field implies that the encapsulation is plain US-ASCII text. The only header fields that have defined meaning for body parts are those the names of which begin with "Content-". All other header fields are generally to be ignored in body parts. Although they should generally be retained in mail processing, they may be discarded by gateways if necessary. Such other fields are permitted to appear in body parts but should not be depended on. "X-" fields may be created for experimental or private purposes, with the recognition that the information they contain may be lost at some gateways.
The distinction between an RFC 822 message and a body part is subtle, but important. A gateway between Internet and X.400 mail, for example, must be able to tell the difference between a body part that contains an image and a body part that contains an encapsulated message, the body of which is an image. In order to represent the latter, the body part must have "Content-Type: message", and its body (after the blank line) must be the encapsulated message, with its own "Content-Type: image" header field. The use of similar syntax facilitates the conversion of messages to body parts, and vice versa, but the distinction between the two must be understood by implementors. (For the special case in which all parts actually are messages, a "digest" subtype is also defined.)
As stated previously, each body part is preceded by an encapsulation boundary. The encapsulation boundary MUST NOT appear inside any of the encapsulated parts. Thus, it is crucial that the composing agent be able to choose and specify the unique boundary that will separate the parts.
All present and future subtypes of the "multipart" type must use an identical syntax. Subtypes may differ in their semantics, and may impose additional restrictions on syntax, but must conform to the required syntax for the multipart type. This requirement ensures that all conformant user agents will at least be able to recognize and separate the parts of any multipart entity, even of an unrecognized subtype.
As stated in the definition of the Content-Transfer-Encoding field, no encoding other than "7bit", "8bit", or "binary" is permitted for entities of type "multipart". The multipart delimiters and header fields are always 7-bit ASCII in any case, and data within the body parts can be encoded on a part-by-part basis, with Content-Transfer-Encoding fields for each appropriate body part.
Mail gateways, relays, and other mail handling agents are commonly known to alter the top-level header of an RFC 822 message. In particular, they frequently add, remove, or reorder header fields. Such alterations are explicitly forbidden for the body part headers embedded in the bodies of messages of type "multipart."
The Content-Type field for multipart entities requires one parameter, "boundary", which is used to specify the encapsulation boundary. The encapsulation boundary is defined as a line consisting entirely of two hyphen characters ("-", decimal code 45) followed by the boundary parameter value from the Content-Type header field.
NOTE: The hyphens are for rough compatibility with the earlier RFC 934 method of message encapsulation, and for ease of searching for the boundaries in some implementations. However, it should be noted that multipart messages are NOT completely compatible with RFC 934 encapsulations; in particular, they do not obey RFC 934 quoting conventions for embedded lines that begin with hyphens. This mechanism was chosen over the RFC 934 mechanism because the latter causes lines to grow with each level of quoting. The combination of this growth with the fact that SMTP implementations sometimes wrap long lines made the RFC 934 mechanism unsuitable for use in the event that deeply-nested multipart structuring is ever desired.
Thus, a typical multipart Content-Type header field might look like this:
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=gc0p4Jq0M2Yt08jU534c0pThis indicates that the entity consists of several parts, each itself with a structure that is syntactically identical to an RFC 822 message, except that the header area might be completely empty, and that the parts are each preceded by the line
--gc0p4Jq0M2Yt08jU534c0pNote that the encapsulation boundary must occur at the beginning of a line, i.e., following a CRLF, and that that initial CRLF is considered to be part of the encapsulation boundary rather than part of the preceding part. The boundary must be followed immediately either by another CRLF and the header fields for the next part, or by two CRLFs, in which case there are no header fields for the next part (and it is therefore assumed to be of Content-Type text/plain).
NOTE: The CRLF preceding the encapsulation line is considered part of the boundary so that it is possible to have a part that does not end with a CRLF (line break). Body parts that must be considered to end with line breaks, therefore, should have two CRLFs preceding the encapsulation line, the first of which is part of the preceding body part, and the second of which is part of the encapsulation boundary.
The requirement that the encapsulation boundary begins with a CRLF implies that the body of a multipart entity must itself begin with a CRLF before the first encapsulation line -- that is, if the "preamble" area is not used, the entity headers must be followed by TWO CRLFs. This is indeed how such entities should be composed. A tolerant mail reading program, however, may interpret a body of type multipart that begins with an encapsulation line NOT initiated by a CRLF as also being an encapsulation boundary, but a compliant mail sending program must not generate such entities.
Encapsulation boundaries must not appear within the encapsulations, and must be no longer than 70 characters, not counting the two leading hyphens.
The encapsulation boundary following the last body part is a distinguished delimiter that indicates that no further body parts will follow. Such a delimiter is identical to the previous delimiters, with the addition of two more hyphens at the end of the line:
--gc0p4Jq0M2Yt08jU534c0p--There appears to be room for additional information prior to the first encapsulation boundary and following the final boundary. These areas should generally be left blank, and implementations should ignore anything that appears before the first boundary or after the last one.
NOTE: These "preamble" and "epilogue" areas are not used because of the lack of proper typing of these parts and the lack of clear semantics for handling these areas at gateways, particularly X.400 gateways.
NOTE: Because encapsulation boundaries must not appear in the body parts being encapsulated, a user agent must exercise care to choose a unique boundary. The boundary in the example above could have been the result of an algorithm designed to produce boundaries with a very low probability of already existing in the data to be encapsulated without having to prescan the data. Alternate algorithms might result in more 'readable' boundaries for a recipient with an old user agent, but would require more attention to the possibility that the boundary might appear in the encapsulated part. The simplest boundary possible is something like "---", with a closing boundary of "-----".
As a very simple example, the following multipart message has two parts, both of them plain text, one of them explicitly typed and one of them implicitly typed:
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Ned Freed <email@example.com> Subject: Sample message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary" This is the preamble. It is to be ignored, though it is a handy place for mail composers to include an explanatory note to non-MIME compliant readers. --simple boundary This is implicitly typed plain ASCII text. It does NOT end with a linebreak. --simple boundary Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii This is explicitly typed plain ASCII text. It DOES end with a linebreak. --simple boundary-- This is the epilogue. It is also to be ignored.The use of a Content-Type of multipart in a body part within another multipart entity is explicitly allowed. In such cases, for obvious reasons, care must be taken to ensure that each nested multipart entity must use a different boundary delimiter. See Appendix C for an example of nested multipart entities.
The use of the multipart Content-Type with only a single body part may be useful in certain contexts, and is explicitly permitted.
The only mandatory parameter for the multipart Content-Type is the boundary parameter, which consists of 1 to 70 characters from a set of characters known to be very robust through email gateways, and NOT ending with white space. (If a boundary appears to end with white space, the white space must be presumed to have been added by a gateway, and should be deleted.) It is formally specified by the following BNF:
boundary := 0*69<bchars> bcharsnospace bchars := bcharsnospace / " " bcharsnospace := DIGIT / ALPHA / "'" / "(" / ")" / "+" / "_" / "," / "-" / "." / "/" / ":" / "=" / "?"Overall, the body of a multipart entity may be specified as follows:
multipart-body := preamble 1*encapsulation close-delimiter epilogue encapsulation := delimiter CRLF body-part delimiter := CRLF "--" boundary ; taken from Content-Type field. ; when content-type is multipart ; There must be no space ; between "--" and boundary. close-delimiter := delimiter "--" ; Again, no space before "--" preamble := *text ; to be ignored upon receipt. epilogue := *text ; to be ignored upon receipt. body-part = <"message" as defined in RFC 822, with all header fields optional, and with the specified delimiter not occurring anywhere in the message body, either on a line by itself or as a substring anywhere. Note that the semantics of a part differ from the semantics of a message, as described in the text.>NOTE: Conspicuously missing from the multipart type is a notion of structured, related body parts. In general, it seems premature to try to standardize interpart structure yet. It is recommended that those wishing to provide a more structured or integrated multipart messaging facility should define a subtype of multipart that is syntactically identical, but that always expects the inclusion of a distinguished part that can be used to specify the structure and integration of the other parts, probably referring to them by their Content-ID field. If this approach is used, other implementations will not recognize the new subtype, but will treat it as the primary subtype (multipart/mixed) and will thus be able to show the user the parts that are recognized.
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Ned Freed <email@example.com> Subject: Formatted text mail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=boundary42 --boundary42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ...plain text version of message goes here.... --boundary42 Content-Type: text/richtext .... richtext version of same message goes here ... --boundary42 Content-Type: text/x-whatever .... fanciest formatted version of same message goes here ... --boundary42--In this example, users whose mail system understood the "text/x-whatever" format would see only the fancy version, while other users would see only the richtext or plain text version, depending on the capabilities of their system.
In general, user agents that compose multipart/alternative entities should place the body parts in increasing order of preference, that is, with the preferred format last. For fancy text, the sending user agent should put the plainest format first and the richest format last. Receiving user agents should pick and display the last format they are capable of displaying. In the case where one of the alternatives is itself of type "multipart" and contains unrecognized sub-parts, the user agent may choose either to show that alternative, an earlier alternative, or both.
NOTE: From an implementor's perspective, it might seem more sensible to reverse this ordering, and have the plainest alternative last. However, placing the plainest alternative first is the friendliest possible option when mutlipart/alternative entities are viewed using a non-MIME- compliant mail reader. While this approach does impose some burden on compliant mail readers, interoperability with older mail readers was deemed to be more important in this case.
It may be the case that some user agents, if they can recognize more than one of the formats, will prefer to offer the user the choice of which format to view. This makes sense, for example, if mail includes both a nicely-formatted image version and an easily-edited text version. What is most critical, however, is that the user not automatically be shown multiple versions of the same data. Either the user should be shown the last recognized version or should explicitly be given the choice.
A digest in this format might, then, look something like this:
From: Moderator-Address MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Internet Digest, volume 42 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="---- next message ----" ------ next message ---- From: someone-else Subject: my opinion ...body goes here ... ------ next message ---- From: someone-else-again Subject: my different opinion ... another body goes here... ------ next message ------