Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] send-email: handle adjacent RFC 2047-encoded words properly

From: Роман Донченко <dpb@corrigendum.ru>
Date: Dec 7, 2014, 14:35 UTC
Message-ID: <op.xqh5hrafnngjn5@freezie>
In-Reply-To: <20141207091859.GA21311@peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> писал в своём письме Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:18:59 +0300:

Show 8 quoted lines

> On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 10:36:23PM +0300, Роман Донченко wrote:
>
>> The RFC says that they are to be concatenated after decoding (i.e. the
>> intervening whitespace is ignored).
>
> Thanks. Both patches look good to me, and I'd be happy to have them
> applied as-is. I wrote a few comments below, but in all cases I think I
> convinced myself that what you wrote is best.

I had the same concerns myself, and eventually convinced myself of the same. :-)

Show 12 quoted lines

> One final note on this bit of code: if there are multiple encoded words,
> we grab the $charset from the final encoded word, and never report the
> earlier charsets. Technically they do not all have to be the same
> (rfc2047 even has an example where they are not). I think we can dismiss
> this, though, as:
>
>   1. It was like this before your patches (we might have seen multiple
>      non-adjacent encoded words; you're just handling adjacent ones),
>      and nobody has complained.
>
>   2. Using two separate encodings in the same header is sufficiently
>      ridiculous that I can live with us not handling it properly.

Yeah, that bugs me as well. But I think handling multiple encodings would require substantial reworking of the code, so I chickened out (with the same excuses :-)).

Roman.