Re: Another problem with rfc2047 encoding

["Bjørn Mork" <bmork@dod.no>]

Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes:
> Bjørn Mork <bmork@dod.no> writes:
>
>> True, but I wonder... How should Gnus handle an illegal address like
>> that?  Quote it, warn the user and try to send anyway if the user
>> insists?  Or just refuse it unconitionally to avoid having people
>> believe they can get away with such addresses?
>
> How does Gnus know it is an illegal address?  Perhaps someone has an
> local-part that is =?iso-8859-1?q?d=F6blitz?=, I believe it is a legal
> RFC 822 local-part.

Ah, sorry.  I didn't check the article well enough (pressing RET C-u g
on the message-id caused "No such article", although RET displayed the
article just fine).  I assumed Thomas were referring to the problem
where Gnus encodes the localpart.  Try replying to 
<hvbrymhkv7.fsf@rasputin.ws.nextra.no> and you'll see...

Gnus will also normally encode the From field in the same way on
outgoing messages.

> IMHO Gnus should not alter local-parts when replying to a message.

Agreed, the wording in RFC2047 only makes sense for the encoding done
by mail clients.  If someone creates a localpart that looks like it's
RFC2047-encoded then that should be used unaltered.  In fact, I
believe Gnus should never alter any local-part at all.  It does now.

And isn't it wrong to decode the local-part when displaying the
message Thomas referred to?


Bjørn
-- 
Don't you realise that trees are crass?