Re: [PATCH] sending minimal MIME headers
On 2006-09-28 11:56:04 +0200, Alain Bench wrote:
> Hum... RFC 2045 defining MV:1 says nothing about encoded headers;
> While RFC 2047 doesn't seem to require sending it (says nothing), and
> upon receiving states:
>
> | 6.1. Recognition of 'encoded-word's in message headers
> [...]
> | (4) A MIME-Version header field is NOT required to be present for
> | 'encoded-word's to be interpreted according to this specification. One
> | reason for this is that the mail reader is not expected to parse the
> | entire message header before displaying lines that may contain
> | 'encoded-word's.
But this breaks the compatibility with non-MIME mailers. And I'm not
sure that all tools behave in this way (in particular, parsing the
header is relatively cheap nowadays).
> The need to send encoded-words with MV:1 is perhaps not explicitly
> stated there (or I missed it), but seems implicit and quite logical: An
> encoded-word is a MIME thing, and a MIME-conformant message must have an
> MV:1. I think you are right, and will amend the patch: Thanks!
Yep, and anyway, this doesn't break anything.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)