It's because other code, MTAs, MLMs, etc., either didn't notice the
errant byte or ignored it, that it reached an MUA. If it had been
spotted and the SMTP MAIL rejected, for example, by the first party
after the bug-inducer then there's more chance it would have been fixed.
By turning a blind eye and referring to "Mar?a" we'd be lengthening the
chain of "where did it go wrong" possibilities.
Let's bound the problem a bit here. MTAs wouldn't normally care about
this, since this only appears in the display-name and it wouldn't even
have been visible until the after the DATA command had finished. I can't
really think it would be reasonable for an MTA to reject email for that
reason by that point, so I think it's reasonable for the burden to fall
on the MUA to make sense of this.
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers