Re: if you really want utf-8 headers...

On 2004-01-01 12:40:59 -0500, John C Klensin wrote:

> 	1.2 We invent message/rfcNNNN, where "rfcNNNN" basically
> 	says "just like RFC2822, but all header fields are
> 	defined as being in UTF-8, not ASCII".
> 	
> 	1.3 The gateway converts all envelope addresses to IMAA
> 	form and encapsulates the original message using
> 	message/rfcNNNN, so we have a MIME body of...
> 
> 	   From: "1342/2047 PersonalName"
> 	       <IMAA-local-part@IDNA-domain>
> 		To: "1342/2047 PersonalName2"
> 	       <IMAA-local-part2@IDNA-domain2>
> 	   Date: RFC2822-date
> 	   MIME-Version: 1.0
> 	   content-type: message/rfcNNNN
> 	   content-type-encoding: <as needed>
> 	
> 	   <original message, with original headers, in original
> 	form>
> 
> 	I hope we can avoid it, but a charset parameter for
> 	message/rfcNNNN would certainly not be rocket science to
> 	define.

> 	1.4 Clever receiving systems notice "message/rfcNNN" and
> 	unwind the situation in some appropriate way, with no
> 	information loss.   And note that the model above is
> 	pure, unextended, MIME and hence causes no Received or
> 	Return-path issues at all.  Non-clever receiving systems
> 	are going to make users unhappy.

Wouldn't that construction violate MIME's "no nested encodings"
rule when transferred in a 7bit environment?

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.