On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 06:35 PM, Austin Clements wrote:
>
>> I haven't looked at exactly what workarounds this enables, but if it's
>> what I'm guessing (RFC 2047 escapes in the middle of RFC 2822 text
>> tokens), are there really subject lines that this
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
On 09/10/2013 06:35 PM, Austin Clements wrote:
I haven't looked at exactly what workarounds this enables, but if it's
what I'm guessing (RFC 2047 escapes in the middle of RFC 2822 text
tokens), are there really subject
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 06:35 PM, Austin Clements wrote:
>
>> I haven't looked at exactly what workarounds this enables, but if it's
>> what I'm guessing (RFC 2047 escapes in the middle of RFC 2822 text
>> tokens), are there really subject lines that this
On 09/10/2013 06:35 PM, Austin Clements wrote:
> I haven't looked at exactly what workarounds this enables, but if it's
> what I'm guessing (RFC 2047 escapes in the middle of RFC 2822 text
> tokens), are there really subject lines that this will misinterpret
> that weren't obviously crafted to
On 09/10/2013 06:35 PM, Austin Clements wrote:
I haven't looked at exactly what workarounds this enables, but if it's
what I'm guessing (RFC 2047 escapes in the middle of RFC 2822 text
tokens), are there really subject lines that this will misinterpret
that weren't obviously crafted to break
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
On 09/10/2013 06:35 PM, Austin Clements wrote:
I haven't looked at exactly what workarounds this enables, but if it's
what I'm guessing (RFC 2047 escapes in the middle of RFC 2822 text
tokens), are there really subject