[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mhbuild and long header fields
From: |
David Levine |
Subject: |
Re: mhbuild and long header fields |
Date: |
Thu, 31 Aug 2023 22:14:35 -0400 |
Philipp wrote:
> I have a version with charstring_t attached. I'm unsure if it's better
> to only fold the body or include the field name. The version attached
> only fold the body.
RFC 5322 ยง2.2.3 only mentions folding the body. And field names
can't have whitespace. So I think that only a body can be folded.
I'll exercise your patch for the next week or so. Unfortunately,
I'll be off line during much of that time so might not respond
quickly.
Thank you for doing this. As the References field in this message
shows, it's badly needed.
David
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, (continued)
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, Philipp, 2023/08/27
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, David Levine, 2023/08/27
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, David Levine, 2023/08/27
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, Philipp, 2023/08/27
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, David Levine, 2023/08/27
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, Philipp, 2023/08/28
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, David Levine, 2023/08/28
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, Philipp, 2023/08/28
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, David Levine, 2023/08/28
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, Philipp, 2023/08/31
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields,
David Levine <=
- Re: mhbuild and long header fields, David Levine, 2023/08/20