On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 11:24 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 10:35 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 21:21 +0800, Not Zed wrote: > > > Still, i'm extremely loathe to, since it is a clear breakage of a > > > pretty simple set of rules from a not-particularly complex rfc. > > > Seriously, MS should know better, for such a fundamental issue. We've > > > had issues with rfc compliance in that code and fixed it, i'm sure > > > they can too. > > > > Whatever happened to "be strict in what you send and flexible in what > > you accept"? (I'm paraphrasing, but that was once the golden rule of the > > Internet). > > whatever happened to reading the spec? > > seriously tho, rfc2047 is pretty clear about how to deal with broken > encoded-words. simply don't decode them... and this is what Evolution > follows.
Which would be a wonderful argument if Evolution was an RFC conformance test suite. But it's not. It's an email client, and as such, it should be focusing on helping people read their mail. -- Dan _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
