Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right
2003-12-10 14:50:18
The "obvious" way for most MUAs is to fire up an editor and use the
subject line it gets back from the editor. And that's what most of
them do.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "fire up an editor". I wasn't
aware that "most" MUAs these days used external programs to do message
editing.
I do suspect that "most" MUAs these days initialize a buffer with the
(decoded) subject field and give the user a chance to edit it, along
with to/cc/etc. fields and the message body.
In that case things would work better if the MUA could detect whether
the user chose to change any of these fields that were initialized from
header fields that contained encoded-words, and if no changes were
made, to use the original (encoded) field text. For address fields,
you'd want to do this on a per-address, rather than per-field basis.
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right, (continued)
Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right, Keith Moore
- Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right, Charles Lindsey
- Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right,
Keith Moore <=
- Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right, Philip Hazel
- Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right, Keith Moore
- Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right, Keith Moore
- Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right, Keith Moore
- Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right, Keith Moore
- Re: Getting RFC 2047 encoding right, Michael Bell
|
|
|