Re: RFC 2047 encoder botched?
On 2007-06-08 15:09:51 +0000, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> Mutt is supposed to continue on line 2 since it's actually within
> an encoded word (but it doesn't know since it never saw '=?'). So
> the first part evaluates to false since the word is "too long"
> and in_encoded_word errorneously is 0.
Actually, I think the logic that deals with the situation after
wrapping is flawed somewhat more deeply. Given how hard this code
is to read, though, something smells like a rewrite here.
Thanks for tracking this down further; I'll have a stab now.
Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>