Ken Yap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 01:43:42 +0100 >From: G�nter Grass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Identifier > >[body of mail] > >When I try to repl to this I get: > >repl: bad addresses: > G�nter Grass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- missing mailbox (�) > >When I try to scan it I get: > > 1+ 03/16 G nter Grass <gue Re: Identifier<<[body of mail] > >I know I should check nmh 1.0 first but are such characters legal in >headers according to the RFC or is his mail program broken for not >encoding them? His MUA is broken: e-mail message headers may only contain ascii (7bit) characters. Characters outside of ascii can be encoded via the rules in rfc2047 and rfc2231. I do not know whether nmh-1.0 supports rfc2047 or not, and I'm sure it doesn't support the extensions (e.g., language specification) in rfc2231. I can name at least MUA which crashes upon receipt of a message which has characters in the header whose 8th bit is set. >Could/should nmh be a bit more forgiving and treat those >characters with accents as alphabetics? Determining whether a byte represents an accented character requires knowledge of the character set. That's much of the point of rfc2047: it requires that a character set be specified with the encoded characters so that they can be interpreted correctly. Philip Guenther ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] UNIX Systems and Network Administrator Gustavus Adolphus College St. Peter, MN 56082-1498 Source code never lies: it just misleads (Programming by Purloined Letter?)
