亚洲欧美第一页_禁久久精品乱码_粉嫩av一区二区三区免费野_久草精品视频

? 歡迎來到蟲蟲下載站! | ?? 資源下載 ?? 資源專輯 ?? 關于我們
? 蟲蟲下載站

?? rfc2045-multipurposeinternetmailextensions(mime).mht

?? 很好的原始資料 RFC 2045 (rfc2045) - Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One
?? MHT
?? 第 1 頁 / 共 5 頁
字號:
6.1.  Content-Transfer-Encoding Syntax

   The Content-Transfer-Encoding field's value is a single token
   specifying the type of encoding, as enumerated below.  Formally:

     encoding :=3D "Content-Transfer-Encoding" ":" mechanism

     mechanism :=3D "7bit" / "8bit" / "binary" /
                  "quoted-printable" / "base64" /
                  ietf-token / x-token

   These values are not case sensitive -- Base64 and BASE64 and bAsE64
   are all equivalent.  An encoding type of 7BIT requires that the body

   is already in a 7bit mail-ready representation.  This is the default
   value -- that is, "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT" is assumed if the
   Content-Transfer-Encoding header field is not present.

6.2.  Content-Transfer-Encodings Semantics

   This single Content-Transfer-Encoding token actually provides two
   pieces of information.  It specifies what sort of encoding
   transformation the body was subjected to and hence what decoding
   operation must be used to restore it to its original form, and it
   specifies what the domain of the result is.

   The transformation part of any Content-Transfer-Encodings specifies,
   either explicitly or implicitly, a single, well-defined decoding
   algorithm, which for any sequence of encoded octets either transforms
   it to the original sequence of octets which was encoded, or shows
   that it is illegal as an encoded sequence.  Content-Transfer-
   Encodings transformations never depend on any additional external
   profile information for proper operation. Note that while decoders
   must produce a single, well-defined output for a valid encoding no
   such restrictions exist for encoders: Encoding a given sequence of
   octets to different, equivalent encoded sequences is perfectly legal.

   Three transformations are currently defined: identity, the "quoted-
   printable" encoding, and the "base64" encoding.  The domains are
   "binary", "8bit" and "7bit".

   The Content-Transfer-Encoding values "7bit", "8bit", and "binary" all
   mean that the identity (i.e. NO) encoding transformation has been
   performed.  As such, they serve simply as indicators of the domain of
   the body data, and provide useful information about the sort of
   encoding that might be needed for transmission in a given transport
   system.  The terms "7bit data", "8bit data", and "binary data" are
   all defined in Section 2.

   The quoted-printable and base64 encodings transform their input from
   an arbitrary domain into material in the "7bit" range, thus making it
   safe to carry over restricted transports.  The specific definition of
   the transformations are given below.

   The proper Content-Transfer-Encoding label must always be used.
   Labelling unencoded data containing 8bit characters as "7bit" is not
   allowed, nor is labelling unencoded non-line-oriented data as
   anything other than "binary" allowed.

   Unlike media subtypes, a proliferation of Content-Transfer-Encoding
   values is both undesirable and unnecessary.  However, establishing
   only a single transformation into the "7bit" domain does not seem

   possible.  There is a tradeoff between the desire for a compact and
   efficient encoding of largely- binary data and the desire for a
   somewhat readable encoding of data that is mostly, but not entirely,
   7bit.  For this reason, at least two encoding mechanisms are
   necessary: a more or less readable encoding (quoted-printable) and a
   "dense" or "uniform" encoding (base64).

   Mail transport for unencoded 8bit data is defined in <A =
href=3D"http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1652.html">RFC 1652</A>.  As of
   the initial publication of this document, there are no standardized
   Internet mail transports for which it is legitimate to include
   unencoded binary data in mail bodies.  Thus there are no
   circumstances in which the "binary" Content-Transfer-Encoding is
   actually valid in Internet mail.  However, in the event that binary
   mail transport becomes a reality in Internet mail, or when MIME is
   used in conjunction with any other binary-capable mail transport
   mechanism, binary bodies must be labelled as such using this
   mechanism.

   NOTE: The five values defined for the Content-Transfer-Encoding field
   imply nothing about the media type other than the algorithm by which
   it was encoded or the transport system requirements if unencoded.

6.3.  New Content-Transfer-Encodings

   Implementors may, if necessary, define private Content-Transfer-
   Encoding values, but must use an x-token, which is a name prefixed by
   "X-", to indicate its non-standard status, e.g., "Content-Transfer-
   Encoding: x-my-new-encoding".  Additional standardized Content-
   Transfer-Encoding values must be specified by a standards-track RFC.
   The requirements such specifications must meet are given in <A =
href=3D"http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2048.html">RFC 2048</A>.
   As such, all content-transfer-encoding namespace except that
   beginning with "X-" is explicitly reserved to the IETF for future
   use.

   Unlike media types and subtypes, the creation of new Content-
   Transfer-Encoding values is STRONGLY discouraged, as it seems likely
   to hinder interoperability with little potential benefit

6.4.  Interpretation and Use

   If a Content-Transfer-Encoding header field appears as part of a
   message header, it applies to the entire body of that message.  If a
   Content-Transfer-Encoding header field appears as part of an entity's
   headers, it applies only to the body of that entity.  If an entity is
   of type "multipart" the Content-Transfer-Encoding is not permitted to
   have any value other than "7bit", "8bit" or "binary".  Even more
   severe restrictions apply to some subtypes of the "message" type.

   It should be noted that most media types are defined in terms of
   octets rather than bits, so that the mechanisms described here are
   mechanisms for encoding arbitrary octet streams, not bit streams.  If
   a bit stream is to be encoded via one of these mechanisms, it must
   first be converted to an 8bit byte stream using the network standard
   bit order ("big-endian"), in which the earlier bits in a stream
   become the higher-order bits in a 8bit byte.  A bit stream not ending
   at an 8bit boundary must be padded with zeroes. <A =
href=3D"http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2046.html">RFC 2046</A> provides a
   mechanism for noting the addition of such padding in the case of the
   application/octet-stream media type, which has a "padding" parameter.

   The encoding mechanisms defined here explicitly encode all data in
   US-ASCII.  Thus, for example, suppose an entity has header fields
   such as:

     Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1
     Content-transfer-encoding: base64

   This must be interpreted to mean that the body is a base64 US-ASCII
   encoding of data that was originally in ISO-8859-1, and will be in
   that character set again after decoding.

   Certain Content-Transfer-Encoding values may only be used on certain
   media types.  In particular, it is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN to use any
   encodings other than "7bit", "8bit", or "binary" with any composite
   media type, i.e. one that recursively includes other Content-Type
   fields.  Currently the only composite media types are "multipart" and
   "message".  All encodings that are desired for bodies of type
   multipart or message must be done at the innermost level, by encoding
   the actual body that needs to be encoded.

   It should also be noted that, by definition, if a composite entity
   has a transfer-encoding value such as "7bit", but one of the enclosed
   entities has a less restrictive value such as "8bit", then either the
   outer "7bit" labelling is in error, because 8bit data are included,
   or the inner "8bit" labelling placed an unnecessarily high demand on
   the transport system because the actual included data were actually
   7bit-safe.

   NOTE ON ENCODING RESTRICTIONS:  Though the prohibition against using
   content-transfer-encodings on composite body data may seem overly
   restrictive, it is necessary to prevent nested encodings, in which
   data are passed through an encoding algorithm multiple times, and
   must be decoded multiple times in order to be properly viewed.
   Nested encodings add considerable complexity to user agents:  Aside
   from the obvious efficiency problems with such multiple encodings,
   they can obscure the basic structure of a message.  In particular,
   they can imply that several decoding operations are necessary simply

   to find out what types of bodies a message contains.  Banning nested
   encodings may complicate the job of certain mail gateways, but this
   seems less of a problem than the effect of nested encodings on user
   agents.

   Any entity with an unrecognized Content-Transfer-Encoding must be
   treated as if it has a Content-Type of "application/octet-stream",
   regardless of what the Content-Type header field actually says.

   NOTE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTENT-TYPE AND CONTENT-TRANSFER-
   ENCODING: It may seem that the Content-Transfer-Encoding could be
   inferred from the characteristics of the media that is to be encoded,
   or, at the very least, that certain Content-Transfer-Encodings could
   be mandated for use with specific media types.  There are several
   reasons why this is not the case. First, given the varying types of
   transports used for mail, some encodings may be appropriate for some
   combinations of media types and transports but not for others.  (For
   example, in an 8bit transport, no encoding would be required for text
   in certain character sets, while such encodings are clearly required
   for 7bit SMTP.)

   Second, certain media types may require different types of transfer
   encoding under different circumstances.  For example, many PostScript
   bodies might consist entirely of short lines of 7bit data and hence
   require no encoding at all.  Other PostScript bodies (especially
   those using Level 2 PostScript's binary encoding mechanism) may only
   be reasonably represented using a binary transport encoding.
   Finally, since the Content-Type field is intended to be an open-ended
   specification mechanism, strict specification of an association
   between media types and encodings effectively couples the
   specification of an application protocol with a specific lower-level
   transport.  This is not desirable since the developers of a media
   type should not have to be aware of all the transports in use and
   what their limitations are.

6.5.  Translating Encodings

   The quoted-printable and base64 encodings are designed so that
   conversion between them is possible.  The only issue that arises in
   such a conversion is the handling of hard line breaks in quoted-
   printable encoding output. When converting from quoted-printable to
   base64 a hard line break in the quoted-printable form represents a
   CRLF sequence in the canonical form of the data. It must therefore be
   converted to a corresponding encoded CRLF in the base64 form of the
   data.  Similarly, a CRLF sequence in the canonical form of the data
   obtained after base64 decoding must be converted to a quoted-
   printable hard line break, but ONLY when converting text data.

6.6.  Canonical Encoding Model

   There was some confusion, in the previous versions of this RFC,
   regarding the model for when email data was to be converted to
   canonical form and encoded, and in particular how this process would
   affect the treatment of CRLFs, given that the representation of
   newlines varies greatly from system to system, and the relationship
   between content-transfer-encodings and character sets.  A canonical
   model for encoding is presented in <A =
href=3D"http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2049.html">RFC 2049</A> for this =
reason.

6.7.  Quoted-Printable Content-Transfer-Encoding

   The Quoted-Printable encoding is intended to represent data that
   largely consists of octets that correspond to printable characters in
   the US-ASCII character set.  It encodes the data in such a way that
   the resulting octets are unlikely to be modified by mail transport.
   If the data being encoded are mostly US-ASCII text, the encoded form
   of the data remains largely recognizable by humans.  A body which is
   entirely US-ASCII may also be encoded in Quoted-Printable to ensure
   the integrity of the data should the message pass through a
   character-translating, and/or line-wrapping gateway.

   In this encoding, octets are to be represented as determined by the
   following rules:

    (1)   (General 8bit representation) Any octet, except a CR or
          LF that is part of a CRLF line break of the canonical
          (standard) form of the data being encoded, may be
          represented by an "=3D" followed by a two digit
          hexadecimal representation of the octet's value.  The
          digits of the hexadecimal alphabet, for this purpose,
          are "0123456789ABCDEF".  Uppercase letters must be
          used; lowercase letters are not allowed.  Thus, for
          example, the decimal value 12 (US-ASCII form feed) can
          be represented by "=3D0C", and the decimal value 61 (US-
          ASCII EQUAL SIGN) can be represented by "=3D3D".  This
          rule must be followed except when the following rules
          allow an alternative encoding.

    (2)   (Literal representation) Octets with decimal values of
          33 through 60 inclusive, and 62 through 126, inclusive,
          MAY be represented as the US-ASCII characters which
          correspond to those octets (EXCLAMATION POINT through
          LESS THAN, and GREATER THAN through TILDE,
          respectively).

    (3)   (White Space) Octets with values of 9 and 32 MAY be
          represented as US-ASCII TAB (HT) and SPACE characters,

          respectively, but MUST NOT be so represented at the end

?? 快捷鍵說明

復制代碼 Ctrl + C
搜索代碼 Ctrl + F
全屏模式 F11
切換主題 Ctrl + Shift + D
顯示快捷鍵 ?
增大字號 Ctrl + =
減小字號 Ctrl + -
亚洲欧美第一页_禁久久精品乱码_粉嫩av一区二区三区免费野_久草精品视频
久久伊人蜜桃av一区二区| 国产传媒久久文化传媒| 久久久美女毛片| 精品伦理精品一区| 日韩免费观看高清完整版 | 免费视频最近日韩| 亚洲色图.com| 亚洲综合精品久久| 亚洲精品伦理在线| 偷窥少妇高潮呻吟av久久免费| 91免费小视频| av不卡一区二区三区| 91小视频在线| 欧美日韩视频在线第一区| 欧美精品在线观看一区二区| 欧美精品久久一区二区三区| 欧美午夜免费电影| 3d动漫精品啪啪一区二区竹菊| 美女视频黄久久| 国产老肥熟一区二区三区| 国产成人在线看| 91久久精品一区二区三| 91精品午夜视频| 国产女人aaa级久久久级| 国产精品免费视频观看| 亚洲综合色自拍一区| 日本不卡不码高清免费观看| 国产一区二区在线电影| 91亚洲精品一区二区乱码| 91精品国产一区二区三区香蕉| 国产a久久麻豆| 欧美一a一片一级一片| 日韩久久免费av| 一区二区三区欧美日| 亚洲国产wwwccc36天堂| 国产精品123| 欧美性猛交xxxx乱大交退制版| www.亚洲免费av| 日韩亚洲欧美在线| 欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 亚洲18女电影在线观看| 成人综合在线视频| 欧美日本精品一区二区三区| 欧美韩国一区二区| 免费成人av在线播放| 日本韩国欧美在线| 国产欧美精品日韩区二区麻豆天美| 亚洲精品在线观| 亚洲一区二区欧美日韩| 成人一区二区三区| 日韩免费看的电影| 性感美女极品91精品| 91原创在线视频| 国产欧美精品一区| 国产乱理伦片在线观看夜一区| 亚洲一区二区三区三| www.99精品| 国产农村妇女精品| 国内精品第一页| 69久久夜色精品国产69蝌蚪网| 欧日韩精品视频| 最新国产精品久久精品| 国产99久久久精品| 久久久久久久久久久久电影| 久久国产人妖系列| 欧美系列亚洲系列| 一区二区三区久久| 91亚洲国产成人精品一区二三| 久久电影网站中文字幕| 色综合久久88色综合天天| 国产精品嫩草影院com| 国内精品国产三级国产a久久| 婷婷久久综合九色综合绿巨人 | 国产精品久久久久久久久晋中| 国产精品你懂的| 豆国产96在线|亚洲| 久久亚洲影视婷婷| 国产伦精一区二区三区| 国产欧美精品国产国产专区 | 欧美久久久久久久久久| 一区二区三区免费在线观看| 在线一区二区观看| 亚洲成人1区2区| 欧美老女人在线| 美女免费视频一区| 久久久精品国产免大香伊| 国产一区二区在线影院| 精品国产1区2区3区| 国产不卡视频在线播放| 亚洲靠逼com| 911精品国产一区二区在线| 青青草国产精品亚洲专区无| 国产午夜精品美女毛片视频| jizzjizzjizz欧美| 亚洲综合精品久久| 精品国产一二三区| 成人h精品动漫一区二区三区| 91玉足脚交白嫩脚丫在线播放| 日韩三级伦理片妻子的秘密按摩| 日本一区二区视频在线| 99re这里只有精品首页| 婷婷亚洲久悠悠色悠在线播放| 成人亚洲一区二区一| 成人免费在线观看入口| 欧美日韩国产经典色站一区二区三区| 久久久久久久久久久久久久久99 | 99精品桃花视频在线观看| 亚洲精品视频自拍| 日韩美一区二区三区| 91在线视频网址| 激情五月激情综合网| 国产精品久久久久久久久免费相片 | 国产欧美日韩精品一区| 91视频免费看| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区| 亚洲精品久久久蜜桃| 欧美变态tickle挠乳网站| 99久久精品免费观看| 精品一二三四区| 亚洲午夜私人影院| 欧美激情一区二区| 日韩一区二区不卡| 色噜噜狠狠成人中文综合 | 国产麻豆成人精品| 伊人一区二区三区| 久久色成人在线| 91精品国产日韩91久久久久久| 国产精品久久久久久福利一牛影视| 国产精品99久久久久久似苏梦涵| 欧美成人高清电影在线| 在线观看一区二区视频| 国产jizzjizz一区二区| 国模大尺度一区二区三区| 亚洲午夜在线视频| 国产精品―色哟哟| 久久精品一区八戒影视| 日韩一区二区精品在线观看| 欧美日韩在线三区| 91美女蜜桃在线| www.欧美日韩国产在线| 成人精品国产一区二区4080| 国产美女精品一区二区三区| 久久66热偷产精品| 久久精品99国产精品| 另类小说色综合网站| 日韩精品电影在线观看| 石原莉奈在线亚洲二区| 亚洲午夜久久久久久久久久久| 欧美三级电影网| 欧美日韩国产免费一区二区| 欧美日韩亚洲综合在线 欧美亚洲特黄一级| 亚洲丶国产丶欧美一区二区三区| 91精品免费观看| 日韩亚洲欧美中文三级| 5566中文字幕一区二区电影| 欧美福利视频导航| 日韩欧美一级二级三级| 久久综合久久久久88| 国产午夜久久久久| 国产精品久久久久久久久免费相片| av亚洲精华国产精华| 国产一区不卡在线| 处破女av一区二区| 一本久久综合亚洲鲁鲁五月天| 午夜在线电影亚洲一区| 视频一区欧美日韩| 激情欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 国产精品女上位| 一区二区三区精密机械公司| 一区二区三区久久| 青草av.久久免费一区| 久久国产精品99精品国产| 国产麻豆精品一区二区| 91久色porny | 亚洲三级在线看| 亚洲一区二区精品3399| 午夜电影一区二区| 国产在线播放一区| 色婷婷av一区二区三区大白胸| 国内精品免费在线观看| 成av人片一区二区| 欧美日韩一区二区三区高清| 欧美哺乳videos| 中文字幕在线观看不卡视频| 亚洲成人激情综合网| 久久国产精品第一页| 日本高清免费不卡视频| 2020日本不卡一区二区视频| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久久久| 国产精品欧美综合在线| 亚洲国产精品一区二区www在线| 国产精品网站在线播放| 亚洲18色成人| 91亚洲国产成人精品一区二区三| 久久爱www久久做| jizz一区二区| 久久久综合网站| 日韩国产精品大片| 色噜噜夜夜夜综合网| 国产午夜精品理论片a级大结局|