Re: bad rfc2047 encoding

[Dave Love <d.love@dl.ac.uk>]

Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes:

> > Does that mean that Gnus 5.9 isn't being maintained?
> 
> That wasn't what I meant.  I don't know the answer.

Well, it looks that way.

> Is that necessery?

I don't know for sure, which is why I wanted someone to address it
who's more familiar with the standards than I am.

> Encoded words are allowed inside comments,

Sure.

> they must simply not contain the character ).  Which the patch fixes.

It didn't seem to, but I think I fell for a defvar not getting
replaced, since the horrible mess of require'ments means you can't
unload the rfc2047 feature.  [rfc2047.el really shouldn't depend on
`message-posting-charset', for instance, even if people are set
against providing a general MIME library.]

In a fresh Emacs the patched version does do the trick, thanks.
However, clearly the result for the typical form of address used in
the microshaft world is bogus:

(with-temp-buffer
  (insert "To: \"Großjohann, K (Kai)\" <Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE>
")
  (rfc2047-encode-message-header)
  (buffer-string))
  => "To: \"=?iso-8859-1?q?Gro=DFjohann,_K_(Kai)\"_<Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dort?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?mund.DE>?=
"

Sorry, I don't have time to grovel the RFCs.  Is one simply not
allowed to use such addresses?  If so, Gnus should warn rather than
completely mangling it.

> I agree.  (I'm reading the gnus bugs list from quimby.gnus.org, which
> removes To/Cc so when I reply it only goes to the author and
> bugs@gnus.org.)

That seems unfortunate.  People reporting bugs will potentially miss
discussion.