On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:07:08AM -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > 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. Well, sure. There's a compressed maildir folder at http://carlos.sna.cx/mutt/problematic_message.tar.gz Notice it lacks Content-Type, for instance... I have others whose subject is incorrectly displayed just like in http://carlos.sna.cx/mutt/mutt.utf8.bug.index_view.png but whose body's accents are displayed properly, because (I assume) it defines Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" whereas the "problematic message" doesn't even have a Content-Type header. Can you see it properly with Mutt from CVS? > > 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. . . Yeah, that might be a bug in the version I run. (that has been fixed already?) I guess I'll just compile mutt by hand and find out for myself, but please check anyway :-) TIA, -- Carlos Laviola <carlos@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature