[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:33:40 EST, Paul Fox said: >> i believe there was consensus that a) this behavior was a result >> of a problem with the original content encoding, and that b) the >> nmh decoder should be more tolerant when decoding, and simply >> pass mis-codings through untouched. > >I'd have to think *real* hard about that.
RFC 2045 is pretty clear about what MUAs should do in the face of a bad encoding; the idea is to follow that. (Also, anything you can get through with odd q-p you could have got through literally.) -- PMM _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
