Re: [Evolution] title encoding
- From: Dan Winship <danw novell com>
- To: Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>
- Cc: Patrick O'Callaghan <poc usb ve>, Michael Zucchi <notzed ximian com>, Xavier Bestel <n0made free fr>, evolution lists ximian com
- Subject: Re: [Evolution] title encoding
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:41:38 -0400
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 11:24 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 10:35 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 21:21 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
Still, i'm extremely loathe to, since it is a clear breakage of a
pretty simple set of rules from a not-particularly complex rfc.
Seriously, MS should know better, for such a fundamental issue. We've
had issues with rfc compliance in that code and fixed it, i'm sure
they can too.
Whatever happened to "be strict in what you send and flexible in what
you accept"? (I'm paraphrasing, but that was once the golden rule of the
whatever happened to reading the spec?
seriously tho, rfc2047 is pretty clear about how to deal with broken
encoded-words. simply don't decode them... and this is what Evolution
Which would be a wonderful argument if Evolution was an RFC conformance
test suite. But it's not. It's an email client, and as such, it should
be focusing on helping people read their mail.
] [Thread Prev