[RCD] Discrepancy/confusion with regards to file name encodings of attachments

Michael Heydekamp listuser at freexp.de
Sun Dec 2 22:41:40 CET 2012

Am 02.12.2012 12:06, schrieb A.L.E.C:
> On 12/02/2012 12:13 AM, Michael Heydekamp wrote:

>>>> So what is true? Is "RFC 2047/2231" Outlook's (as the UI says) or
>>>> Thunderbird's (as the config says) default? And what is the best option in
>>>> terms of backwards compatibility...?
>>> Both are true.
>> Both can't be true, as they contradict each other.
>>> It just Thunderbird's default is what works with Outlook ;)
>> If "1" (which is RFC2047/2231 aka "MS Outlook") is Thunderbird's default,
>> then "Full RFC 2231 (Thunderbird)" can neither be true nor does it make any
>> sense to me.
> But you taken into consideration a possibility that this is true even if
> you don't understand it?

Sure. But if I really don't understand it, there may be a lack of

To me, there can only be ONE default. Would you agree to that?

The only explanation for the confusion and assumed contradiction that I can
imagine is that these options...

> Full RFC 2231 (Thunderbird)
> RFC 2047/2231 (MS Outlook)
> Full RFC 2047 (other)

...do (for instance) NOT mean that "Full RFC 2231 (Thunderbird)" is
Thunderbird's DEFAULT, but that it is COMPATIBLE with Thunderbird (and
Thunderbird ONLY). Is this correct?

If it is meant that way, then it should be more clearly stated. Plus that
the same convention should be used both in the UI and in the config file.
The way it is currently explained is just causing confusion.

And if "RFC 2047/2231 (MS Outlook)" should really mean "COMPATIBLE with
Outlook" (rather than being Outlook's DEFAULT) - shouldn't it then better
read as "RFC 2047/2231 (compatible with MS Outlook, Thunderbird and all
others)" - assuming that this option is indeed compatible with any MUA?

>>>> Furthermore, this really shouldn't be a user-configurable option. RFC
>>>> 2047/2231 are way too complex and hard to understand for an end-user. This
>>>> should be set server-side only. I'm wondering how this option could make it
>>>> into the UI.
>>> There was once a "advanced" switch, and this option was hidden by
>>> default. Then the switch disapeared.
>> All of a sudden...? Or did somebody make it disappear? And if so, why?
> If I remember there was only one "advanced" option, so it has not make
> sense to hide it, if you need more info, search commit logs.

Thanks, not necessary. I would just still suggest to remove this option
from the user config entirely. This is definitely no end-user stuff, not
even in an advanced section of the UI.

Shall I open a ticket...?
Michael Heydekamp
Co-Admin freexp.de

More information about the dev mailing list