On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 17:58 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
Works for me. 2.4.2.2 now reads: [...]
Folding of long header lines (as described in [IMAIL] 2.2.3) is
removed prior to interpretation of the data. The folding syntax (the
CRLF that ends a line plus any leading whitespace at the beginning of
the next line that indicates folding) are interpreted as if they were
a single space.
<pause>
Hmmm, that last paragraph actually differs from RFC 2822, section 2.2.3,
which says:
Unfolding is accomplished by simply removing any CRLF
that is immediately followed by WSP.
I.e., the leading whitespace should *not* be treated as a single space
but rather be left as is. Unless I hear screams, I'm going to remove
the sentence that starts "The folding syntax..." as conflicting.
that's fine, but I find it a bit misleading to only refer to [IMAIL],
since RFC 2047 changes the folding rule in the presence of two
encoded-words: any folding whitespace between them must be removed (see
section 6.2 paragraph 3).
e.g.,
Subject: =?utf-8?q?hell?=
=?utf-8?q?o?=
should be presented as:
Subject: hello
on the other hand,
Subject: =?utf-8?q?hell?=
o
should be folded into
Subject: hell o
my suggestion is to add the reference, perhaps like so
Long header lines are unfolded (as described in [IMAIL] 2.2.3
and [MIME] part 3 6.2) prior to interpretation of the data.
--
Kjetil T.