Re: bug#1876: mutt-1.5.6i: Mutt doesn't handle invalid characters when replying to a mail
On Monday, October 4, 2004 at 8:58:19 PM +0200, Vincent Lefèvre wrote:
[unknown charset]
> On 2004-10-03 22:22:38 +0200, Alain Bench wrote:
>> charset-hook ^x-unknown$ us-ascii
> But what if some other people use x-user-defined for instance?
Another charset-hook or a wider regexp ^x-u(nknown|ser-defined)$
> How do I match any unknown charset?
AFAICS no way.
> UTF-8 sequences in the quoted text and the X-UNKNOWN charset. So,
> hooking to us-ascii is the only thing that will work consistently.
Comfortable workaround would fail visibly (false accented chars). I
accounted this in « Can fail in rare cases. ». Workarounders immediatly
notice problem, <pipe-message> to "LC_ALL=C less" to investigate
situation, guess it's UTF, and workaround problem with <edit-type>. Good
accents again. Hopefully this liar-unknown case is rare enough. Most of
the time good accents are just good accents, for workarounders.
| macro pager & "<pipe-message>less<Enter>" "voir le message brut"
| macro pager \e& "<pipe-message>LESSCHARSET=ascii LESSCHARDEF= \
| LC_ALL=C less<Enter>" "voir le message très brut"
OTOH workarounders consider all those question marks that austere
guys put here and there as... Failing in _all_ cases.
Some toggling macro could be done to switch workarounders to austere
guys and back, depending on mood. But let's better keep 2 clear opponent
sides for the battle.
> Does anyone know how I can disable auto-sensing with Emacs?
Also vim and nvi, please? And others?
[bytes 80-9F with label Latin-1]
> But if this could easily be configured in Mutt (with several possible
> choices), this would be better.
Choices: Real, \oct, ?-mask, what else? \u0080?
Hum... Masking will make impossible for editor to give back real
chars to Mutt: Not reversible. Is this really annoying?
Bye! Alain.
--
When you want to reply to a mailing list, please avoid doing so with
Openwave WebEngine. This lacks necessary references and breaks threads.