* RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047
@ 2004-03-03 18:52 Matthias Andree
2004-03-03 23:20 ` Jesper Harder
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Matthias Andree @ 2004-03-03 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hi,
Gnus appears to have some difficulties handling RFC-2231, I haven't even
checked if it's supposed to be implemented. This is from the Usefor
mailing list, a summary line:
R 20040303T162159 [ 20: Charles Lindsey ] Re: =?us-ascii*la?q?Re:_?= Re:
This is a language specification according to RFC-2231 section 5 in
context with RFC-2047. reformime (ships with maildrop) decodes this
fine, and I find not obvious flaws.
I'd rather have the subject be "Re: Re: Re:" which, albeit only a tiny
bit less ugly, is the right thing to show.
--
Matthias Andree
Encrypt your mail: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047
2004-03-03 18:52 RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047 Matthias Andree
@ 2004-03-03 23:20 ` Jesper Harder
2004-03-04 1:01 ` Katsumi Yamaoka
2004-05-16 16:05 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jesper Harder @ 2004-03-03 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> writes:
> Gnus appears to have some difficulties handling RFC-2231, I haven't even
> checked if it's supposed to be implemented.
It wasn't. But I've now added it to `rfc2047-encoded-word-regexp'.
> This is from the Usefor mailing list, a summary line:
>
> R 20040303T162159 [ 20: Charles Lindsey ] Re: =?us-ascii*la?q?Re:_?= Re:
Ha, ha. That's actually quite funny -- specifying Latin for 'Re' to
imply that it doesn't mean 'Reply'.
(But apart from that joke I think RFC 2231 is pretty useless -- noone
cares about the language tag extension to RFC 2047. The main part of
the RFC is also silly, there was no sane reason to invent a new way of
encoding MIME parameter values when they could just as well have
reused the RFC 2047 encoding).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047
2004-03-03 23:20 ` Jesper Harder
@ 2004-03-04 1:01 ` Katsumi Yamaoka
2004-03-04 12:22 ` Matthias Andree
2004-05-16 16:05 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Katsumi Yamaoka @ 2004-03-04 1:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
>>>>> In <m3wu61ikko.fsf@defun.localdomain>
>>>>> Jesper Harder <harder@ifa.au.dk> wrote:
> Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> writes:
>> Gnus appears to have some difficulties handling RFC-2231, I haven't even
>> checked if it's supposed to be implemented.
> It wasn't. But I've now added it to `rfc2047-encoded-word-regexp'.
There's a mismatched parenthesis, oops. Fixed.
--
Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047
2004-03-04 1:01 ` Katsumi Yamaoka
@ 2004-03-04 12:22 ` Matthias Andree
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Matthias Andree @ 2004-03-04 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: ding
Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org> writes:
>>>>>> In <m3wu61ikko.fsf@defun.localdomain>
>>>>>> Jesper Harder <harder@ifa.au.dk> wrote:
>
>> Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> writes:
>
>>> Gnus appears to have some difficulties handling RFC-2231, I haven't even
>>> checked if it's supposed to be implemented.
>
>> It wasn't. But I've now added it to `rfc2047-encoded-word-regexp'.
>
> There's a mismatched parenthesis, oops. Fixed.
Works for me, thank you, Jesper & Katsumi!
--
Matthias Andree
Encrypt your mail: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047
2004-03-03 23:20 ` Jesper Harder
2004-03-04 1:01 ` Katsumi Yamaoka
@ 2004-05-16 16:05 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2004-05-16 18:06 ` Jesper Harder
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 2004-05-16 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
Jesper Harder <harder@ifa.au.dk> writes:
> Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> writes:
>
>> Gnus appears to have some difficulties handling RFC-2231, I haven't even
>> checked if it's supposed to be implemented.
>
> It wasn't. But I've now added it to `rfc2047-encoded-word-regexp'.
rfc2231 handling is implemented (by rfc2231.el :-).
> (But apart from that joke I think RFC 2231 is pretty useless -- noone
> cares about the language tag extension to RFC 2047.
Yes. That's why there's
(defalias 'mail-decode-encoded-word-region 'rfc2047-decode-region)
If you want rfc2231 instead, just
(fset 'mail-decode-encoded-word-region 'rfc2231-decode-region)
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047
2004-05-16 16:05 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
@ 2004-05-16 18:06 ` Jesper Harder
2004-05-16 23:58 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jesper Harder @ 2004-05-16 18:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
> Jesper Harder <harder@ifa.au.dk> writes:
>
>> It wasn't. But I've now added it to `rfc2047-encoded-word-regexp'.
>
> rfc2231 handling is implemented (by rfc2231.el :-).
I don't think this particular part of RFC 2231 is implemented in
rfc2231.el.
It wouldn't make a lot of sense, either, since the language tag is
just a trivial extension to RFC 2047, and not something completely
different like the encoding for MIME parameter values which is the
main part of 2231.
> If you want rfc2231 instead, just
>
> (fset 'mail-decode-encoded-word-region 'rfc2231-decode-region)
`rfc2231-decode-region' doesn't exist.
--
Jesper Harder <http://purl.org/harder/>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047
2004-05-16 18:06 ` Jesper Harder
@ 2004-05-16 23:58 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 2004-05-16 23:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
Jesper Harder <harder@ifa.au.dk> writes:
> I don't think this particular part of RFC 2231 is implemented in
> rfc2231.el.
>
> It wouldn't make a lot of sense, either, since the language tag is
> just a trivial extension to RFC 2047, and not something completely
> different like the encoding for MIME parameter values which is the
> main part of 2231.
That's true.
> `rfc2231-decode-region' doesn't exist.
Hm... so it doesn't. Probably didn't think it was worth
implementing, since rfc2231-encoded stuff is so rare in the wild.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-05-16 23:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-03-03 18:52 RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047 Matthias Andree
2004-03-03 23:20 ` Jesper Harder
2004-03-04 1:01 ` Katsumi Yamaoka
2004-03-04 12:22 ` Matthias Andree
2004-05-16 16:05 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2004-05-16 18:06 ` Jesper Harder
2004-05-16 23:58 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).