[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] question about encoded recipient names

From: Oliver Kiddle
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] question about encoded recipient names
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:30:45 +0200

You wrote:
> i noticed that the provided mhl.* and scan.* and repl*comps aren't
> uniform in their use of "decode" for address fields.  for instance, To
> and Cc headers don't ever use it, and From and Reply-to are
> inconsistent as well.  is there any reason not to simply use it
> everywhere?

We probably don't really want to use decode when constructing replies
because they would need to be reencoded when constructing the final
header for the reply: the headers need to be ASCII and nmh has no support
for encoding.

Even with support for encoding, we would be decoding to the current
locale which may not support the characters required. Perhaps not
something to worry about with UTF-8 being more common but I'd prefer to
have to see the unencoded string in my editor than for the name of my
recipient to get mangled.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]