Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
You have done it again.
And again: Subject: headers should be in god's own ASCII.
(and they should -not- be changed without a very good reason)
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 5 Jul 2024 at 21:15:45 BST, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
You have done it again.
And again: Subject: headers should be in god's own ASCII.
(and they should -not- be changed without a very good reason)
That whole text string *is* ASCII.
Yes, but not god's own.
Further, I refer you to RFC 2045 and RFC
2047, which, amongst other things, describe the use of character sets other >> than ASCII, and also how encoded words work, of which this subject header is >> an example.
All that works fine for body material, (if not quoted)
but it fails regularly for headers.
On 5 Jul 2024 at 21:15:45 BST, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
You have done it again.
And again: Subject: headers should be in god's own ASCII.
(and they should -not- be changed without a very good reason)
That whole text string *is* ASCII.
Further, I refer you to RFC 2045 and RFC
2047, which, amongst other things, describe the use of character sets other than ASCII, and also how encoded words work, of which this subject header is an example.
These RFCs, by the way, were published in 1996. Where have you ben
since then? Hiding under a bridge?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 339 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 02:14:46 |
Calls: | 7,467 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,691 |
Messages: | 5,628,069 |