Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters

[Ken Hornstein]

>That Chrome decodes the broken encoding isn't a reason for Gmail to
>continue to produce it if Chrome decodes the correct content too?  Is
>there somewhere where a Googler states that's the reason to keep
>producing RFC-violating content?

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=601933

This was talking specifically about HTTP header field parameters, but
the same issues apply.  Here's a note from that thread:

-There are web sites that indeed use RFC 2047 encoding (GMail, probably
-other Google services, and maybe more...); and one explanation for it
-is that it "works" in both Firefox and Chrome and thus does allow a
-single code path.

>I'm all for balking at handling it, similar to

Well, we don't balk right now.  It still gets parsed correctly.  It's
just when you go to save it, the filename is the RFC 2047 encoded name.
Which, AFAIK, is still a valid (if awkward) Unix filename.

--Ken