Christian Eyrich Reporter
	Description • 21 years ago

Additionally to handle UTF-8 strings for mail and hostnames in the background
(bug 235312), domainparts of email addresses have to be en- and decoded when
sending resp. presented to the user.

	Christian Eyrich Reporter
	Comment 1 • 21 years ago

This patch uses the new function EncodeUTF8Mailaddresses(), called at one point
in nsMsgComposeAndSend::SetMimeHeader() to encode From:, To: Reply-To:, Cc: and
Bcc: to ACE.
That what the first three files are about.

All the rest is about decode ACE coded mail addresses to UTF-8 to present them
to the user.
The actual work is done in the new function DecodeAceMailaddresses() called in
MIME_DecodeMimeHeader(). It sits there because this is a function which is
called for mime-decoding of each address to be displayed.
The problem is, that it is called very often and also for headers other the one
we're interested in.
So I had to introduce a boolean parameter decodeACE. The rest of the patch
consists of modifications to callers of MIME_DecodeMimeHeader() and callers of
such functions. No big thing but we've a bunch of them.

	David :Bienvenu
	Comment 2 • 16 years ago

Christian, any interest in reviving this patch for TB 3.0 beta 2?

	Christian Eyrich Reporter
	Comment 3 • 16 years ago

I'm not sure anymore.
Have ACE coded addressed ever been allowed in mail headers? Decoding them from such incoming mails might be reasonable if there are other clients around which produce them. But I don't think it's right for TB to generate those.

RFC 5335 and 5336 specify other ways to handle internationalized Email Headers.

But I don't have time for that anyway, sorry.

	Mark Banner (:standard8)
	Comment 4 • 16 years ago

(In reply to comment #3)
> RFC 5335 and 5336 specify other ways to handle internationalized Email Headers.

These are part of the eai working groups current work, most of which is in draft at the moment: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/eai/

	:aceman
	Comment 5 • 12 years ago

Is this still needed after bug 127399?

	Mark Banner (:standard8)
	Comment 7 • 11 years ago

(In reply to :aceman from comment #5)
> Is this still needed after bug 127399?

Given bug 918901 (just duped to this bug), yes.