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

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> On Oct 6, 2016, at 7:36 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> 2) Perform an exclusive open+create of the filename.
> 
> 2a) If the file exists, and we are interactive, prompt for a replacement name 
> (or to overwrite); else (2c)
> 
> 2b) If the as-encoded filename results in an error from the underlying open() 
> call, report the error and fall through.
> 
> 2c) Synthesize a unique name, write to that, and report the name.

Sorry, I was not at all clear about this.  I am proposing NO decoding what so 
ever of any incorrectly encoded file name.  Case (2b) above avoids any issues 
with filenames that are invalid for the implementation.  And we can't count on 
the old POSIX static semantics for those.  As Ken pointed out, ZFS filesystem 
have a switch that enforces UTF-8 compliance.  Or not.  It's not up to us to 
judge "or not."  open(2) determines the validity of the proposed filename.

--lyndon