Dear Scott Wood, On 16.11.12 19:38, Scott Wood wrote: > On 11/16/2012 01:43:24 AM, Andreas Bießmann wrote: >> Dear Scott Wood, >> >> On 16.11.12 08:20, Andreas Bießmann wrote: >> > Dear Scott Wood, >> > >> > On 16.11.12 01:29, Scott Wood wrote: >> >> On 11/15/2012 06:22:11 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 10:15:46AM -0000, >> >>> >> =?utf-8?q?Beno=C3=AEt_Th=C3=A9baudeau_=3Cbenoit=2Ethebaudeau=40advans?==?utf-8?q?ee=2Ecom=3E?= >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Sigh, it looks like either patchwork is mangling the From address or >> >> mutt is failing to understand something valid (I assume the latter >> since >> >> "git am" didn't seem to have a problem with it)... I don't see this >> >> encoding in the original e-mail. >> > >> > patchwork has no influence her. AFAIK the mail header should only >> > contain ASCII, > > This is how I got it in the original e-mail: > > From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Beno=EEt_Th=E9baudeau?= > \t<[email protected]> > > I found another e-mail on the U-Boot list where it did arrive encoded, > and both Balsa (which also fails on the Patchwork-produced mbox) and > mutt decode it fine. > > Another example straight from the list that both decode fine is: > From: =?utf-8?Q?Beno=C3=AEt_Th=C3=A9baudeau?= > <[email protected]> > > From Patchwork it becomes: > From: > =?utf-8?q?Beno=C3=AEt_Th=C3=A9baudeau_=3Cbenoit=2Ethebaudeau=40advans?= > =?utf-8?q?ee=2Ecom=3E?= > > So patchwork is re-encoding these into UTF-8 (if it was originally > something else) and encoding the entire address, not just the comment > section.
You are right. I did only investigate the mails on list, but patchwork must re-encode the header here. I checked for example http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/199686/. If you show the header on webpage you will find the unchanged 'From:' as on the list. But if you get the mbox via http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/199686/mbox/ the 'From:' is recoded. > Can you point to the standard that allows this (at least to > give me something to search for on mutt/Balsa compliance)? Sorry I can't. Maybe someone on the patchwork list can clarify this? Since IDNA [1,2] is handled in another way I can not see a requirement to encode the mail address at all. But this is not my special field, I can't tell. >> > therefore the 'From:' header content is itself encoded. >> > This snippet manage to decode Benoîts name correctly: >> > >> > ---8<--- >> > perl -MEncode -e 'binmode(STDOUT, ":utf8"); print >> > Encode::decode("MIME-Header", "=?utf-8?Q?Beno=C3=AEt_Th=C3=A9baudeau?= >> > <[email protected]>");' >> > --->8--- >> > >> > git and even patchwork [] can decode it, but it seems your mutt rule to >> > setup the rely mail is broken. Maybe [] can help here? > > I haven't set up any custom rule, and your second link is for formatting > the reply message body -- even if it somehow manages the decoding when > mutt doesn't, that won't fix the actual address the mail gets sent to. Well, that is correct, it will just fix the mail content but not the headers. I had a the replies of Wolfgang to my mails in mind where he also has my name coded (see for example http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/101978). >> BTW: it seems your MTA is also broken. See the 'To:' Header in your >> sent mail to Benoît. See also [1] > > Yes, it was the bounce message that brought it to my attention. It's > not the MTA; it's mutt that didn't recognize the form and decided to > suffix it with "@buserror.net" thinking it was just a local part. I understand. You took the mbox from patchwork to send you reply, is this correct? Best regards Andreas Bießmann [1] http://www.denic.de/en/domains/internationalized-domain-names/idn-conversion.html [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5890 _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
