Re: [Evolution-hackers] camel_header_unfold()

[Jules Colding <colding omesc com>]

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 10:25 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > Might be nitpicking, but RFC 2822 says:
> > 
> >    "The process of moving from this folded multiple-line representation
> >    of a header field to its single line representation is called
> >    "unfolding". Unfolding is accomplished by simply removing any CRLF
> >    that is immediately followed by WSP.  Each header field should be
> >    treated in its unfolded form for further syntactic and semantic
> >    evaluation."
> > 
> > So it appears to me that too much is being removed above. Shouldn't the
> > unfolding operation simply remove the CRLF and nothing else?
> 
> if you wanted to get nitty gritty to the finer details of the spec,
> sure, but in reality it's much nicer to get rid of the extra whitespace
> many clients stick in there when folding.

Sigh... I see. 

I guess I am a nitpicking kind of guy when it comes to standards, but I
see the need for recognizing that strangely nonconforming place called
"the real world".

> Often, mailers will folder "part1 part2" into "part1\n\tpart2" or "part1
> \n\t part2" or sometimes even "part1\n    part2"
> 
> Anyways, if we wanted to remove the unfolding niceness, we'd simply
> remove that inner loop and it'd be fixed.

Yes, but your reasons for keeping this behavior seems sound.

Thanks,
  jules