In <20030114222859(_dot_)59f7dc40(_dot_)moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
As I have said, the real problems are in generating RFC 2047.
You have to second guess what a plausible encoding of some unknown header
might be, and then you have to second guess what receiving agents might do
if you guessed wrongly.
I'm very much opposed to having intermediaries trying to guess what
encoding was used at the source. Tag it as "unknown", encode it,
and move on.
Yes, I am coming round to the view that, in the few cases where a gateway
cannot determine the proper way to encode some header in RFC 2047, it
would be better to stick an "X-" in front of that header and then encode
it as unstructured. That gives the user the best chance of working out
what was originally intended, and little harm will ensue since it cannot
have been a header that was essential for the basic News or Email
protocols.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5
Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5