On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:19:09PM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: >> > Or we could just ignore it. AFAICS, this doesn't actually violate >> > rfc2047, nor rfc5322. The 78-character limit is simply a SHOULD, and >> > we have up to 998 for MUST. For a single-address header[1], this seems >> > kind of unlikely to me. >> >> True. But since the fix is as simple as it is, perhaps it's worth it >> just for the clean conscience? > > Fair enough. Patch to follow. > Thinking about it a bit more, I'm getting a bit more unsure: - The 78-limit is about user-interfaces, not protocol robustness. - Since send-email unwraps the line and does not re-wrap it, even if we have a name like this it's likely that the work gets undone right away. - So that means that send-email should probably also be fixed. But now I'm wondering if we've crossed the point where this will just lead to less obvious code for very little gain. So I think I might have over-though this. >> > [1] For multi-address headers like "format-patch --cc=foo --cc=bar", it >> > looks like we already break them across lines. >> >> Yes, but this is even worse: these fields don't get encoded at all! > > Ugh, you're right. That is a totally separate issue, and one I really > don't want to get into. Indeed. I have an itch around this area (I've been playing with porting send-email to C), so I might look at it at some point soon. > Because it means we have to _parse_ those > headers and understand which part is a name and which is an address. > That part is surprisingly easy: If it contains a '<', then it's on the form "Foo Bar Baz <foo@xxxxxxx>". If not, it's "foo@xxxxxxx" (assuming it's UTF-8 encoded rfc5322 mailbox'es we assume, which would make the most sense to me) > People who use "--cc" or format.headers will have to deal with that > themselves. I consider both to be somewhat useless, since you can > post-process the mbox after format-patch is run (or in your MUA). > Whereas quoting and encoding fields in format-patch is necessary to give > unambiguous input to the MUA (be it send-email or whatever). > I agree. I'm actually a tad surprised we support it in the first place. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html