[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: |
David Levine |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters |
Date: |
Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:16:15 -0400 |
I wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>
> > The exact issue is that some MUAs will use RFC 2047 encoding
> > for a filename that contains 8-bit characters when creating a
> > Content-Disposition field.
>
> > I am torn as to what to do here. It feels somehow wrong to support this
> > for decode natively, but I'm not completely convinced of that. We have
> > a number of email programs that get this wrong, including a very popular
> > one. This might be something perfect for mhfixmsg to deal with.
>
> Sounds like a job for mhfixmsg, I'll look into it for 1.7.
Done.
David
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters,
David Levine <=
- 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, 2016/10/03
- 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