R. David Murray writes: > Hmm. Makes sense to me. So you'd rather the method were called "fold" > and that refold_source remains the name of the policy control.
Yes. > What's the word for what is done when a text message is made to have > a line length of less than 78 by using quoted printable (or base64) > encoding? RFC 2045 discusses "insertion of soft line breaks"; it doesn't mention a term like "folding". "Folding" seems like a good term to me, though. Note that the RFC 2045 definition of quoted-printable says that physical line length MUST be 76 characters or less, including any terminating = but not the CRLF pair that separates lines. > Can anyone see a use case for controlling folding of headers > separately from folding of message bodies? I haven't thought of > one, which is why I'm thinking one policy knob controls both. The RFCs' treatments differ somewhat. RFC 5322 has both a MUST NOT and a SHOULD NOT exceed limit on line length (998 and 78 characters, not including the CRLF, respectively). RFC 2045 quoted-printable has only the MUST NOT limit of 76 (but the difference in limits is not a big deal). It's not clear to me what exactly the policy knob you're talking about is for body text. There is no policy really allowed if quoted- printable is being used. So the policy knob is whether to use quoted-printable to limit physical line length? The only reason I can think of for having separate controls is that many MUAs mishandle quoted-printable in the body text. Patches don't apply, one-time-key URLs in links get broken and fail to be recognized. On the other hand, header-folding rarely has such consequences in my experience. _______________________________________________ Email-SIG mailing list Email-SIG@python.org Your options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/email-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
