Re: My open issues with RFC3028bis

[Kjetil Torgrim Homme <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 17:58 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
> Works for me.  2.4.2.2 now reads: [...]
> 
>    Folding of long header lines (as described in [IMAIL] 2.2.3) is
>    removed prior to interpretation of the data.  The folding syntax (the
>    CRLF that ends a line plus any leading whitespace at the beginning of
>    the next line that indicates folding) are interpreted as if they were
>    a single space.
> 
> <pause>
> 
> Hmmm, that last paragraph actually differs from RFC 2822, section 2.2.3,
> which says:
>    Unfolding is accomplished by simply removing any CRLF
>    that is immediately followed by WSP.
> 
> I.e., the leading whitespace should *not* be treated as a single space
> but rather be left as is.  Unless I hear screams, I'm going to remove
> the sentence that starts "The folding syntax..." as conflicting.

that's fine, but I find it a bit misleading to only refer to [IMAIL],
since RFC 2047 changes the folding rule in the presence of two
encoded-words:  any folding whitespace between them must be removed (see
section 6.2 paragraph 3).

e.g.,
   Subject: =?utf-8?q?hell?=
       =?utf-8?q?o?=
should be presented as:
   Subject: hello

on the other hand,
   Subject: =?utf-8?q?hell?=
       o
should be folded into
   Subject: hell    o

my suggestion is to add the reference, perhaps like so

        Long header lines are unfolded (as described in [IMAIL] 2.2.3
        and [MIME] part 3 6.2) prior to interpretation of the data.

-- 
Kjetil T.