In <HuU1P1DxTyF2kH+Insj8JA(_dot_)md5(_at_)prosecco(_dot_)oryx(_dot_)com> Arnt
Gulbrandsen <arnt(_at_)gulbrandsen(_dot_)priv(_dot_)no> writes:
Now, to be kind and courteous that program should use the same subject
field, perhaps prefaced by "Re: " (or "Auto: "), such that if the
recipient threads based on subject, everything work, no matter whether
the recipient supports RFC 2047 or not.
By and large, user agents should (or SHOULD) decode the RFC2047 stuff
before doing anything "clever" with the header. Note that all the encoded
stuff is really for human consumption, so it should not matter (but of
course it does). The only thing that is even mentioned in any
standards-like document regarding interpreting the Subject-header is
"Re: " (it has a mention in RFC 2822, for example, and is likely to have
a slightly firmer mention in USEFOR).
However, one of the tasks the USEFOR WG is undertaking is a companion "Best
Current Practice" document, and in the initial draft for that I have
written that if you add a "Re: " to a Subject-header, then it SHOULD be in
the clear _before_ the start of any RFC 2047-encoded stuff. That seems
like a good practice to me, since it means that agents that want to strip
it off (before producing sorted lists of headers, for example) can at least
do that correctly.
That implies using the same character set, q/b encoding etc. as the original.
Best practice is propably to store the original, and decode it on the fly
whenever it is needed for humans.
--
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_)clerew(_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