Re: Is the format of the headers right?

[Alain Bench <veronatif@xxxxxxx>]

Hello,

 On Friday, July 14, 2006 at 22:49:16 +0800, liujiaping wrote:

>| Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*=gb2312''%C0%EE%D7%D3%D1%AB%2Epdf

    That's RFC 2231 encoding, the only one valid here. But some Outlooks
and webmails don't know how to decode that, giving ATTxxxx.DAT name
munging and such malfunctions.


>| Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="=?GB2312?B?wO7X09GrLnBkZg==?="

    That's invalid RFC 2047 encoding. Though you can persuade Mutt to
decode that, by setting $rfc2047_parameters=yes.

    You can also persuade Mutt to generate such bad encoding, by
patching and setting $create_rfc2047_parameters=yes. This constitutes a
standard violation though, so better restrict this for sending
attachments to Outlook and webmail users, in cases where it is strictly
necessary.


> I refered to the rfc2047 document.

    See chapter #5: The parameters of the "Content-Disposition:" field
MUST NOT use encoded words.


Bye!    Alain.
-- 
set honor_followup_to=yes in muttrc is the default value, and makes your
list replies go where the original author wanted them to go: Only to the
list, or with a private copy.