This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author brandon-rhodes
Recipients barry, brandon-rhodes, r.david.murray
Date 2014-03-27.23:37:31
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1395963452.17.0.405574647422.issue21079@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I agree that is_attachment supports the most common use-case of people who need to inspect the content disposition!

But people implementing heavyweight tools and email clients might additionally need to distinguish between a MIME part whose disposition is explicitly "inline" and a MIME part whose disposition is simply unspecified — since the RFC seems to allow clients quite a bit of freedom in the case where it is entirely unspecified:

"Content-Disposition is an optional header field. In its absence, the MUA may use whatever presentation method it deems suitable." — RFC 2183

And a three-possibility 'inline'|'attachment'|None return value from get_content_disposition() would perfectly reflect the three possibilities envisioned in the standard.
History
Date User Action Args
2014-03-27 23:37:32brandon-rhodessetrecipients: + brandon-rhodes, barry, r.david.murray
2014-03-27 23:37:32brandon-rhodessetmessageid: <1395963452.17.0.405574647422.issue21079@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-03-27 23:37:32brandon-rhodeslinkissue21079 messages
2014-03-27 23:37:31brandon-rhodescreate