On 2020-03-30 at 14:32, David Wright wrote: > On Sat 28 Mar 2020 at 10:30:07 (+0200), Andrei POPESCU wrote: > >> On Vi, 27 mar 20, 23:15:12, David Wright wrote: >> >>> However, the actual problem that Russell introduced was how a >>> character set—any character set—should be encoded in the email >>> header parameter's value. And the RFC answer is "not in Base64", >>> which is for unstructured fields, as illustrated by the header of >>> my previous post. Mutt, as expected, writes conformant values but >>> can be instructed to decode particular non-conformant ones. >> >> So any test involving mutt as source is irrelevant. > > Well, I'm not sure who's testing what. AIUI Russell is happy to > switch to Thunderbird for those attachments from the cattle raisers > association. Richard Hector was unable to save the empty Romanian > attachment, so I posted a non-empty version to see whether it was the > emptiness or the name that was the problem. No reply.
FWIW, as another Thunderbird user, I likewise couldn't save the empty attachment (it didn't give an error, when I was using "save as", but the file never showed up in the filesystem), but saving the non-empty one by the exact same method produced a file just fine. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
