On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote: >>The question remains of whether mhstore should decode 2047-encoded >>filenames natively. It'd be friendly and it's very unlikely that what >>looks ike an encoded string isn't. On the other hand, running mhfixmsg >>shouldn't be prohibitive. > > I know; I'm torn about this. I mean, yeah, mhfixmsg will take care of it. > But still ... ugh; if the brokenness wasn't so widespread, I would say no. > Not sure. Thoughts from anyone else?
I experienced this problem years ago with my project. I ended up implementing 2047 decoding for filename parameter since it appears others are unable to read specifications. 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. I do not recommend blanket 2047 decoding for parameter data. Just limit it to parameters associated with a filename. --ewh _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers