Re: encoding of message-ids

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:34:29AM -0400, David Bremner wrote: > Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > > That said, RFC 2047 suggest that its encodings are only relevant > > in places where a "text" token would be used. Message-ID (and > > References and In-Reply-To) are intended to only contain > >

Re: encoding of message-ids

Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > That said, RFC 2047 suggest that its encodings are only relevant in > places where a "text" token would be used. Message-ID (and References > and In-Reply-To) are intended to only contain dot-atom-text tokens. So > probably it would be

Re: encoding of message-ids

On Tue 2016-02-16 07:38:09 -0500, David Bremner wrote: > I spent a little time this morning staring at the code, and it seems > that all of the message-ids are parsed via g_mime_decode_text, which > deals with RFC2047 encodings and makes guesses at decoding 8bit > characters. In practice this

encoding of message-ids

I spent a little time this morning staring at the code, and it seems that all of the message-ids are parsed via g_mime_decode_text, which deals with RFC2047 encodings and makes guesses at decoding 8bit characters. In practice this means that in the notmuch database all headers are UTF-8. Since