On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 10:35 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 21:21 +0800, Not Zed wrote: > > Still, i'm extremely loathe to, since it is a clear breakage of a > > pretty simple set of rules from a not-particularly complex rfc. > > Seriously, MS should know better, for such a fundamental issue. We've > > had issues with rfc compliance in that code and fixed it, i'm sure > > they can too. > > Whatever happened to "be strict in what you send and flexible in what > you accept"? (I'm paraphrasing, but that was once the golden rule of the > Internet).
whatever happened to reading the spec? seriously tho, rfc2047 is pretty clear about how to deal with broken encoded-words. simply don't decode them... and this is what Evolution follows. Jeff -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Novell, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.novell.com
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
