On 2020-04-22 14:45:35 +0200, Claus Assmann wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014, Claus Assmann wrote: > > When replying to an address that used an utf-8 encoded name, e.g., > > > > From: =?utf-8?B?U2VuZGVyIFfDpGNoCg==?= <sen...@example.com> > > > > mutt turned this into > > > > To: Sender =?utf-8?B?V8OkY2g/IDxzZW5kZXJAZXhhbXBsZS5jb20+?= > > instead of > > To: Sender =?utf-8?B?V8OkY2g/?= <sen...@example.com> > > This is causing me significant problems again... any chance to get > this fixed?
I don't have any issue (the generated encoding is not the same here, but it seems correct). > Or any "hack" to work around the problem? This may be related to the configuration. > > BTW: I use --enable-exact-address as otherwise mutt shows addresses > > in a "nice" format that doesn't match reality and caused me grief > > several times when I copied those addresses into a filter ... and > > nothing was filtered... I don't use --enable-exact-address, but I don't see how this can be related here. The manual says: Mutt supports the "Name <user@host>" address syntax for reading and writing messages, the older "user@host (Name)" syntax is only supported when reading messages. The --enable-exact-address switch can be given to configure to build it with write-support for the latter syntax. EXACT_ADDRESS in the output of mutt -v indicates whether it's supported. but your example does not use this old syntax. Are there still users who use this old syntax??? -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
