> Encoded-words are designed for parts of the headers that
> are strictly for human consumption, not the machine-readable parts.
Yeah, should have read "2047-encoding" <ascii@ACE-encoding>
The point is still the same, ACE-encoding/decoding can occur at the same
time as 2047-encoding/decoding, when the display data is converted into
protocol data.
> > More problematic is extra-config data, such as a hand-coded Reply-To
> > header field in the message, as this data will bypass the mailer's
> > boundary checks.
>
> I don't see why. According to RFC 822 the Reply-To: field has the
> exact same syntax as the To: field, and MUAs routinely do syntax
> checking on the To: field, so they should do the same checking on
> the Reply-To: field.
I am thinking about command line tools and automated mail generators which
will not view Reply-To as a protocol operation.
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
