On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 at 13:26, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On approximately 10/9/2009 8:10 AM, came the following characters from the
keyboard of Stephen J. Turnbull:
Glenn Linderman writes:
> > > produce a defect report, but then simply converted to Unicode as if
> > > it were Latin-1 (since there is no other knowledge available that
> > > could produce a better conversion).
> >
> > No, that is already corruption. Most clients will assume that string
> > is valid as a header, because it's valid as a string.
>
> Sure it is corruption. That's why there is a defect report. But
> the conversion technique is appropriate, per the Postel principle.
Actually, I would say you are emitting leniently, in violation of the
Postel principle.
You can say that, but I don't have to believe it. I'm talking about
accepting; the message has arrived, it is here, the client is trying to look
at it, and I'm talking about ways the client can look at not-quite-perfect
data, knowing that it is not quite perfect, but still being able to see it.
I'm not at all talking about emitting data. You seem to be calling the email
package helping the client to accept not-quite-perfect data, as a form of
emitting data. It is not.
IMO, the appropriate way for the email package to provide the API you
are talking about is it provide the client with a way to get at the raw
byte string, which I think everyone agrees on. If the client wants to
decode it as if it were latin-1 to process it, it can then do that.
--David (RDM)
_______________________________________________
Email-SIG mailing list
Email-SIG@python.org
Your options:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/email-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
