>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.
AFAICT, with the exception of older versions of Outlook (like before 2007) and Lotus notes, pretty much "everybody" can decode RFC 2231 correctly. And I believe that "most" modern MUAs (including nmh! :-) ) will generate it. Some people will generate both: http://www.igaware.com/blog/attachments-converted-to-dat-files-when-sending-from-zarafa-solved/ Personally that seems mega-bozo to me, as I'm not sure what's supposed to happen if you include two parameters of the same name (even if one is encoded, and one isn't). >I do not recommend blanket 2047 decoding for parameter data. Just limit it >to parameters associated with a filename. I find this argument convicing; thoughts from others? --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
