Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters

[Ken Hornstein]

>Acting like other MUA's on this doesn't match nmh's behaviour on other
>transgressions and I'd prefer the wrong encoding not to be swept under
>the carpet.  nmh users are often savvy enough that they can chase back
>to the creator, e.g. FLOSS PHP library, but only once they become aware
>of the problem.

Sigh.  Since I did that, I am sympathetic to that argument, but the specific
case you're talking about (marking an enclosing multipart with q-p) is
not exactly the same here.

For comparison, yes, they're both explicit RFC violations.  But the
former introduced a real ambiguity; should the enclosing parts be
encoded with q-p?  The latter ... well, not so much.  And while some
MUAs have been slowly fixing things (see: Outlook), others are clearly
fringe players (Lotus Notes), Gmail is kind of a dominant player.  And
it's clear from the stuff I've read online that people with much more
clout than I have tried, and the people in charge of Gmail simply Don't
Give a Shit.

Again, it sticks in my craw that we have to do this, but all indications
are that this is unfortunately rather common.

--Ken