[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters |
Date: |
Mon, 03 Oct 2016 10:53:10 -0400 |
>Acting like other MUA's on this doesn't match nmh's behaviour on other
>transgressions and I'd prefer the wrong encoding not to be swept under
>the carpet. nmh users are often savvy enough that they can chase back
>to the creator, e.g. FLOSS PHP library, but only once they become aware
>of the problem.
Sigh. Since I did that, I am sympathetic to that argument, but the specific
case you're talking about (marking an enclosing multipart with q-p) is
not exactly the same here.
For comparison, yes, they're both explicit RFC violations. But the
former introduced a real ambiguity; should the enclosing parts be
encoded with q-p? The latter ... well, not so much. And while some
MUAs have been slowly fixing things (see: Outlook), others are clearly
fringe players (Lotus Notes), Gmail is kind of a dominant player. And
it's clear from the stuff I've read online that people with much more
clout than I have tried, and the people in charge of Gmail simply Don't
Give a Shit.
Again, it sticks in my craw that we have to do this, but all indications
are that this is unfortunately rather common.
--Ken
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, David Levine, 2016/10/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Earl Hood, 2016/10/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, David Levine, 2016/10/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Valdis . Kletnieks, 2016/10/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters,
Ken Hornstein <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2016/10/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, David Levine, 2016/10/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Earl Hood, 2016/10/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, David Levine, 2016/10/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/07
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Earl Hood, 2016/10/05