[ale] Oops. I was slightly wrong. (was: Re: Problem with Evolution's subject line containing apostrophe's)

[Jim Popovitch]

On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 14:44 -0400, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> I just came across something else in reading this RFC further (I am
> currently attempting to implement the various RFCs completely in a
> class library, which is why I am digging into them so much at the
> moment).  It says: 
>    A mail reader need not attempt to display the text associated with an
>    'encoded-word' that is incorrectly formed.  However, a mail reader
>    MUST NOT prevent the display or handling of a message because an
>    'encoded-word' is incorrectly formed.
> It also says that the quoted word MUST be surrounded by whitespace.
> Apparently, this message header breaks that rule; it should be written
> as one of the following:
> 
> =?windows-1252?Q?E360=92s_Linhardt:_Hacker_Sent__Porn_to_Client=92s_Database?=
> =?windows-1252?Q?E360=92s_Linhardt:_Hacker_Sent__Porn_to_Client=92s?=
> Database
> =?windows-1252?Q?E360=92s=20Linhardt:=20Hacker=20Sent=20=20Porn=20to=20Client=92s=20Database?=
> =?windows-1252?Q?E360=92s=20Linhardt:=20Hacker=20Sent=20=20Porn=20to=20Client=92s?= Database
> 
> Which means that neither SPAM-L nor Evolution are breaking the
> standard; the mailer broke the standard, SPAM-L chose to attempt to
> repair the header and Evolution (as permitted by the standard) did not
> make the attempt.
> 
> In order to attempt to see if Evolution deals with properly formed
> headers, I sent myself a message with (sorry, many UTF-8 characters
> coming) the header:
> 
> Testing UTF-8 Headers: ???????????????????????????????
> 
> The message's header line displayed correctly in Evolution both in the
> preview pane and the message list, and the source shows:
> 
> Subject: Testing UTF-8 Headers:
>         =?UTF-8?Q?=C2=AB=C2=A9=C2=AE=C3=A6=C3=86=C2=B0=C2=B6=C3=9F=C2=A7=C3=A7?=
>         =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=B1=C3=A1=C3=A9=C3=AD=C3=B3=C3=BA=C2=A1=C2=B2=C2=B3=C2=A4?=
> 
> =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=82=AC=C2=BC=C2=A3=C2=BD=C2=BE=E2=80=98=E2=80=99=C2=A5?=
> 
> Which means that I was hasty and incorrect when I said that Evolution
> didn't appear to support the standard and that it was a bug.  :-(  I
> apologize for that.  My guess is that Evolution does not attempt to
> fix up broken encoded words to avoid guesswork and crashing.  It's
> unstable enough some days as it is, so I suppose this is probably a
> good thing.
> 
> As you can see here, Evolution is capable of creating (and parsing)
> compliant headers just fine.  Sorry for not having all the information
> the first time around.
> 
>     ? Mike

Thanks Mike.  I'll try and keep track of which client MUA I see this
originating from.  It only happens periodically, so perhaps I can inform
the user(s) next time I catch it.

Thanks!

-Jim P.