On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:18:36 +0900, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: > 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?
Well, I have *not* looked at this in detail yet. By default nothing is changed (refold_source='none'). My preliminary thought was that if refold_source is 'long', and we come across a body that is wider than the RFC limit (or if the application wants to reformat to a different limit), we could reconstruct the body and refold it to the new limit. Perhaps this is not practical/useful; as I say I haven't gotten there yet :) > 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. That's an interesting point. So perhaps I should rename the control 'header_source_refold'. I hate making the name longer, but anything less would be ambiguous, and I've already got other controls with long names :(. On the other hand, we could also provide a separate control for whether or not quoted printable bodies in particular were folded, and consider both controls when deciding what to do with a particular quoted printable body. I favor the latter at the moment. -- R. David Murray http://www.bitdance.com _______________________________________________ Email-SIG mailing list Email-SIG@python.org Your options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/email-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
