[Rt-devel] [Rt-commit] r19578 - in rt/3.8/trunk: share/html/Ticket/Attachment/WithHeaders
ruslan.zakirov at gmail.com
Wed Jul 22 21:53:48 EDT 2009
I'm working on OriginalHeaders sub right now. I see there special case
when OriginalEncoding is base64 or quoted-printable, but as far as I
know it's impossible encoding for content.
b64 and QP are content transfer encodings. Yes, headers can be
protected using Q or B encoding (variants of b64 and QB). Do we have a
real need in making "Download with headers" unreadable for a human? I
can not read Q/B encodings :)
Do you have a real life example where OriginalEncoding is b64 or QB?
And example where we should protect headers using Q or B encodings?
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Emmanuel Lacour<elacour at easter-eggs.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 12:59:24AM +0400, Ruslan Zakirov wrote:
>> Emmanuel, there is no such thing as original encoding for headers.
>> Anything not ascii is illegal in the head. Even the message has been
>> in some encoding then it doesn't mean that the head was in the same or
>> even in one encoding.
> For me, "download" with headers is a way to get the mail as close as
> possible as the form it had before entering RT.
> When mail enter RT, header is rfc 2047 decoded, content-type charset
> header is changed as utf-8 as content of email is recorded in utf-8 in
> DB, then headers are saved in DB.
> Except I'm missing something, we don't record somewhere original rfc
> 2047 encoding of those headers, so I tried to asume it's somewhat
> consistent with text content. I'm ok with you that this is not usefull,
> and can be often false.
> So the OriginalHeaders method can still exists I think, but only return
> rfc 2047 headers with content-type header charset reverted to
> Do you agree?
>> I never saw "download with headers" as something
>> useful for anything except some debugging. I don't mind that we make
>> it consistent and readable, but let's make it in a branch with tests
>> and for 3.8.4.
> Ok, for a branch, but even it's a debugging function, we should try to
> returns true datas ;)
Best regards, Ruslan.
More information about the Rt-devel