Re: questions on QP, non-text attachments and munpack

[Jamie Zawinski <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] wrote:
> 
> From your statements above, you believe that munpack is incorrect.

If you're referring to me, that's not what I meant -- I thought that
munpack was doing the right thing, but that whoever had encoded binary
data in QP needed to use Base64 instead.

But now I agree with Ned -- you can use QP for binary data, but you just
need to be careful to make CR, LF, and CRLF explicit, and not to use
hard breaks (CRLF not preceeded by "=") since that's the part that has
"textual" semantics, and a decoder is allowed to translate those to the
local linebreak convention.

It still sounds, though, like the program that is encoding binary data
in QP is doing something wrong -- it's probably using hard breaks.

-- 
Jamie Zawinski    [e-mail]   http://www.netscape.com/people/jwz/
``A signature isn't a return address, it is the ASCII equivalent of a
  black velvet clown painting; it's a rectangle of carets surrounding
  a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like Heinlein or Dr. Who.''
                                                         -- Chris Maeda