Munged Headers....

Cameron Simpson cs at zip.com.au
Sun Sep 27 21:54:21 UTC 2009


On 27Sep2009 11:11, Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to> wrote:
| On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 23:39:41 +0800,
|   Ed Greshko <Ed.Greshko at greshko.com> wrote:
| > Too bad you continue to miss any salient point....   Forget about 2047
| > for a moment
| 
| RFC 2047 explains how to use nonascii character sets in headers.
| That is the source for correct behavior.
| 
| > To: "Rabbit, Duck, Stuffed" <place at nowhere.com>
| > 
| > And your mutt ended up putting it in Cc: as....
| > 
| > Cc: Rabbit, Duck, Stuffed <place at nowhere.com>
| > 
| > The "Rabbit, Duck, Stuffed" needs to be treated as one item....  As I
| 
| No. RFC 2047 specifically says it isn't supposed to be treated that way.

I wish I could find the original header you guys were starting with,
because mutt _is_ very RFC compliant and I have seen exactly the header
breakage we're discussing.

For clarification:

In the _absence_ of an RFC2047 encoded word, "Rabbit, Duck, Stuffed"
needs to be treated as one item. So Ed's assertion that:

  To: "Rabbit, Duck, Stuffed" <place at nowhere.com>

is a _single_ address is correct.

An RFC2047 encoded word like =?charset?enc?code...?= _is_ supposed to be
treated as one word, but _bare_ whitespace is forbidden in the =?...?=
word. The RFC quite clearly says it:

  IMPORTANT: 'encoded-word's are designed to be recognized as 'atom's by
  an RFC 822 parser.  As a consequence, unencoded white space characters
  (such as SPACE and HTAB) are FORBIDDEN within an 'encoded-word'.
  For example, the character sequence

    =?iso-8859-1?q?this is some text?=

  would be parsed as four 'atom's, rather than as a single 'atom' (by
  an RFC 822 parser) or 'encoded-word' (by a parser which understands
  'encoded-words').  The correct way to encode the string "this is some
  text" is to encode the SPACE characters as well, e.g.

    =?iso-8859-1?q?this=20is=20some=20text?=

So it is quite important for you guys to be arguing about a specific
example of a header, because all your arguments apply in certain
circumstances.

And since I can't find the supposed header you're arguing about I'm
having trouble sorting this out.

Personally, I reply to messages using mutt's group-reply function (==
"reply to all" in other readers) and then trim the resultant to/cc
headers if appropriate. No reply-to damage required.

Cheers,
-- 
Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/

Microsoft Mail: as far from RFC-822 as you can get and still pretend to care.
        - Abby Franquemont-Guillory <abbyfg at tezcat.com>




More information about the fedora-list mailing list