[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters |
Date: |
Tue, 04 Oct 2016 09:25:35 -0400 |
> Content-Type: inode/x-empty; name*=UTF-8''%41%00%42
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*=UTF-8''%41%00%42
>
>`mhstore -auto' creates `./A'. Perhaps the RFCs rule out %00? But then
>again, we're talking about crap that doesn't follow the RFCs. If it's
>%41%2F%42 then `A/B' is created if A exists, so that seems OK.
Sigh. We use a lot of C strings, so we're not so great on handling
embedded NULs. It's one of those things that is simultanously hard
to fix, and AFAICT not worth it. Let me ask you, Ralph ... what do you
WANT to happen here?
--Krn
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Earl Hood, 2016/10/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, David Levine, 2016/10/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Valdis . Kletnieks, 2016/10/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2016/10/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters,
Ken Hornstein <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, David Levine, 2016/10/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Earl Hood, 2016/10/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, David Levine, 2016/10/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/07
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Earl Hood, 2016/10/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, David Levine, 2016/10/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2016/10/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2016/10/06
- Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters, David Levine, 2016/10/06