Re: bad rfc2047 encoding

[Simon Josefsson]

Bjørn Mork <bmork@dod.no> writes:

> And
>
> (with-temp-buffer
>   (insert "To: <Kai.Großjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE>")
>   (rfc2047-encode-message-header)
>   (buffer-string))
>
> evaluates to
>
> "To: <Kai.=?iso-8859-1?q?Gro=DFjohann?=@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE>"
>
> OK, it's an illegal local part, but still... such local parts _do_
> exist.  Gnus is handling this in an ugly and non-compliant way IMHO.
> RFC2047 says: "An 'encoded-word' MUST NOT appear in any portion of an
> 'addr-spec'." It does not say that an illegal local part cancels this
> requirement. 
>
> I agree with Dave that the headers should be parsed to ensure that
> only comments, text and words within phrases are encoded. Other parts
> of the headers should never be encoded no matter which characters they
> contain. Gnus should instead probably warn the user about the illegal
> header content.
>
> Another example where Gnus fails:
>
> (with-temp-buffer
>   (insert "From: \"Bjørn Mork\" <bmork@dod.no>")
>   (rfc2047-encode-message-header)
>   (buffer-string))
> "From: \"=?iso-8859-1?q?Bj=F8rn?= Mork\" <bmork@dod.no>"
>
> RFC2047: 
> "An 'encoded-word' MUST NOT appear within a 'quoted-string'."

Yup, I now agree parsing the header is required.  RFC 2047 is only to
be used in some parts of the header.  I wonder if rfc822.el is up to
this though, I remember it didn't cope with non-ASCII properly at all.
Anyone want to work on it?

> In this example the quoted-string should probably be unquoted and
> then encoded. Or would that break something?

It could perhaps encode the quotes too.