Re: Majordomo drops multi-line Subject: - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Guido Neitzer
Subject Re: Majordomo drops multi-line Subject:
Date
Msg-id 47BA5834-EB6F-416B-8722-33F0739A0995@pharmaline.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Majordomo drops multi-line Subject:  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: Majordomo drops multi-line Subject:  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Re: Majordomo drops multi-line Subject:  (Bernhard Weisshuhn <bkw@weisshuhn.de>)
This is a Reply to the message "Re: Majordomo drops multi-line Subject:" and I produce a Subject lomger then 80 characters and since the OP is using mutt like me, whats going on here?  (Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle@freenet.de>)
List pgsql-general
On 23.08.2006, at 16:31 Uhr, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

>> Can you have multi-line subject lines?  I didn't think that was
>> possible.
>
> Yes.  This is the header of a mail you sent to -patches:

Aha? Subject is an "unstructured header field" and according to RFC
2822 [1]:

----8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<----
2.2.1. Unstructured Header Field Bodies


    Some field bodies in this standard are defined simply as
    "unstructured" (which is specified below as any US-ASCII characters,
    except for CR and LF) with no further restrictions.  These are
    referred to as unstructured field bodies.  Semantically,
unstructured
    field bodies are simply to be treated as a single line of characters
    with no further processing (except for header "folding" and
    "unfolding" as described in section 2.2.3).

----8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<----

So they don't contain line feeds or carriage returns and so the can't
be multi-line. If a mail client sends multi line subjects it does
something against the RFC and I assume with that, it does something
wrong.

This is the theory in RFC 2822 as far as I understand it.

cug

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: pl/R problem
Next
From: Michael Fuhr
Date:
Subject: Re: pl/R problem