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 the workaround?  

not to get all meta, but i imagine subject lines that refer an example
of this particular issue (e.g. when talking about RFC 2047) will break
;)  I'm trying one variant here.

> The RFC 2047
> escape sequence was deliberately designed to be obscure, since RFC
> 2047 itself caused previously "standards-compliant" subject lines to
> potentially be interpreted differently.

right, and it was designed explicitly to put the boundary markers atword
boundaries, and not in the middle of a word (i think that's what this is
all about, right?).  so implementations which put the boundary markers
in the middle of a word, or which include whitespace within the encoded
text, aren't speaking RFC 2047.

anyway, if there's a rough consensus to go forward with this, i'm not
about to block it.  I understand that a large part of the business of
being an MUA is working around other people's bugs instead of expecting
them to fix them :/  I just don't like mis-rendering other text.

	--dkg