>It's because other code, MTAs, MLMs, etc., either didn't notice the >errant byte or ignored it, that it reached an MUA. If it had been >spotted and the SMTP MAIL rejected, for example, by the first party >after the bug-inducer then there's more chance it would have been fixed. >By turning a blind eye and referring to "Mar?a" we'd be lengthening the >chain of "where did it go wrong" possibilities.
Let's bound the problem a bit here. MTAs wouldn't normally care about this, since this only appears in the display-name and it wouldn't even have been visible until the after the DATA command had finished. I can't really think it would be reasonable for an MTA to reject email for that reason by that point, so I think it's reasonable for the burden to fall on the MUA to make sense of this. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
