Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9CF6DE1416 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 05:34:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.307 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.244, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.55, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ibssecv-NVph for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 05:34:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6708C6DE13FB for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 05:34:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aW2En-0003fc-5X; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:33:49 -0500 Received: (nullmailer pid 30244 invoked by uid 1000); Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:34:29 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: encoding of message-ids In-Reply-To: <87ziv0iimt.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> References: <87si0svnim.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87ziv0iimt.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+26~g9404723 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:34:29 -0400 Message-ID: <877fi3v4t6.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:34:37 -0000 Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > That said, RFC 2047 suggest that its encodings are only relevant in > places where a "text" token would be used. Message-ID (and References > and In-Reply-To) are intended to only contain dot-atom-text tokens. So > probably it would be more correct to avoid applying to these specific > fields. > > i dunno that it's a big deal though, given the analysis above. I guess there are two seperate issues. One is the (mildly bogus) application of RFC2047 decoding to message-ids. The other other is the coercion into utf8 from whatever wacky 8bit encoding some creative person might use in a message-id. d