Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <3E171FEC(_dot_)5080301(_at_)alex(_dot_)blilly(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
2. Comments may well exist within angle brackets, e.g.:
Return-Path: <(=?us-ascii?q?foo?=)>
But there is no non-ASCII there, so no problem.
Now if I had
Return-Path: <(?-?-?-?)>
where "?-?-?-?" should be regarded as a placeholder for some sensible
comment in Hungarian, Arabic or Chinese, then my proposed workaround
would transform it into
Return-Path: =?iso-8859-1?q?<(=3F-=3F-=3F-=3F>)?=
which, I will grant you, is not a valid Return-Path
As you may recall, that was in response to the lastest variant of your
gateway "heuristic", in which you claimed that URIs should be bracketed
by '<' and '>' on the supposed grounds that that would prevent
misinterpreting parentheses in URIs as comments, further supposing
(incorrectly) that comments could not appear within angle bracketed
constructs. So your gateway process (which you now call a "workaround")
would in fact entirely miss the content within the angle brackets. And
that proposed gateway heuristic simply won't work precisely because
it does not take into account full syntax.