RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047

RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047

[Matthias Andree]

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

Re: RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047

[Jesper Harder]

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).

Re: RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

>>>>> 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>

Re: RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047

[Matthias Andree]

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

Re: RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

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

Re: RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047

[Jesper Harder]

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/>

Re: RFC-2231 vs. RFC-2047

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

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