On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:31:47PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 16:13 +0100, Michael Haardt wrote:
> > If you view the source, everything should be shown unmodified,
> > although I have seen the client evolution showing a "fixed up" message
> > when looking at the source without saying a word about it.
>
> Evolution is broken. The formatting of the header may be _syntactically_
> irrelevant, but that is no excuse for corrupting it as Evolution does.
We are talking about two different things here. I saw how Evolution
showed a "fixed-up" message *source*, pretending the MIME structure of
a message was correct, although it was not. I am not talking about the
regular display of mails.
> The fix for idiocy such as that displayed at
> http://david.woodhou.se/evo-ate-my-spam-report.jpeg is not to reformat
> the headers, but to fix the mail client so that it doesn't mangle them.
If the report had been a single header line with CR-LF-tab folding,
Evolution does the correct thing here. To me, the application (I guess
SA here) that assumes folding would be anything but a way to transport
long lines is broken. If arbitrary data should be transported, MIME
does the job.
"Received:" headers with tabs look just as ugly as the report above,
and most likely for the same reason: Ignorance of folding semantics.
Michael
%20that%20assumes%20folding%20would%20be%20anything%20but%20a%20way%20to%20transport%0A>%20long%20lines%20is%20broken.%20%20If%20arbitrary%20data%20should%20be%20transported,%20MIME%0A>%20does%20the%20job.%0A>%20%0A>%20%22Received:%22%20headers%20with%20tabs%20look%20just%20as%20ugly%20as%20the%20report%20above,%0A>%20and%20most%20likely%20for%20the%20same%20reason:%20Ignorance%20of%20folding%20semantics.%0A>%20%0A>%20Michael%0A>%20%0A>%20%0A>%20 "Reply to this message")
