On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 03:17:16AM -0200, Carlos Laviola wrote: > I decided to jump on the UTF-8 bandwagon a few weeks ago and I'm having > some weird problems with messages that are sent without any kind of > indication that the message is ISO-8859-1 encoded (or worse, since a > Subject, for instance, should specify the encoding and the accents and > other special characters should be encoded, at least AFAIK). Can you try sending me a problematic email? I get loads of email from all kinds of sources, and I haven't noticed any trouble with most mails that aren't deliberately mislabeled by the sending MUA (like Outlook likes to do, for instance). Mutt simply assumes ISO-8859-1, AFAIK. If you wanna compare your config to mine, all the charset-relevant stuff is in my main muttrc [1]. > There's something else that is weird; some messages, as shown in > mutt_utf8_msg.png (before) and mutt_utf8_msg.png (after) present on a That second one should be mutt_utf8_msg2.png, BTW, in case anybody didn't figure it out. > website I setup with screenshots of these annoyances > (http://carlos.sna.cx/mutt/) show that, somehow, just invoking edit-type > (bound to ^E here) with its default "text/plain" argument causes what > you saw change from the first to the second screen grab. That's a mystery to me. Maybe changing the content-type to text/plain invokes Mutt's assumption-making code automatically? beats me. . . > I run Debian GNU/Linux unstable, mutt-utf8 version 1.5.4+20031024-1 and > libncursesw5 5.3.20030719-4, which is the library that provides mutt > with the UTF-8 support, apparently. I'm running Mutt from CVS (currently a bit newer than 1.5.5.1i), and libncurses 5.3 compiled as libncursesw also (which allows Mutt to deal with your terminal in a reasonable manner - mutt+ncurses works just fine since UTF is built into your terminal (or terminal emulator), but mutt+ncursesw means Mutt can format stuff correctly, since it knows how many screen characters are occupied by a given string ... else, mutt simply assumes strlen(3) provides that answer, which of course isn't a correct assumption in UTF-8) on a Slackware GNU/Linux stable as a rock, FWIW [2]. HTH [3], - Dave [1] http://www.bigfatdave.com/dave/mutt/muttdir/muttrc [2] For What It's Worth [3] Hope That Helps -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpr0DoVhIGwV.pgp
Description: PGP signature