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

[Ken Hornstein]

>Google has no excuse for generating such data, but as you note in your OP,
>other MUAs have been doing it for a long time and from vendors that are
>notorious for not following specs properly.  I do not know how many MUAs
>support RFC 2231.

AFAICT, with the exception of older versions of Outlook (like before 2007)
and Lotus notes, pretty much "everybody" can decode RFC 2231 correctly.
And I believe that "most" modern MUAs (including nmh! :-) ) will generate
it.  Some people will generate both:

http://www.igaware.com/blog/attachments-converted-to-dat-files-when-sending-from-zarafa-solved/

Personally that seems mega-bozo to me, as I'm not sure what's supposed to
happen if you include two parameters of the same name (even if one
is encoded, and one isn't).

>I do not recommend blanket 2047 decoding for parameter data.  Just limit it
>to parameters associated with a filename.

I find this argument convicing; thoughts from others?

--Ken