On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 02:46:48PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > I'm thinking about enabling $rfc2047_parameters by default, and would like > to hear any counter-arguments against this.
I believe the original argument against was that doing so violates the RFCs, and therefore potentially obscures a header that actually wanted that text to appear in the header in conformance with the spec. However--and my memory on this is as vague as ever--wasn't there an update to the RFCs that expressly allowed it in headers for which it wasn't previously allowed? One certainly might raise the question of why it was originally excluded from the spec... There was probably a reason, but I don't know it. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
