On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:28:21PM -0200, Carlos Laviola wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:36:53PM -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 01:25:18PM -0200, Carlos Laviola wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:07:08AM -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > I took the message from there, and sendmail(1)ed it to myself. > > Sure enough, it didn't display properly, so I had to ^E on it. > > Even with that, though, the subject doesn't show up properly. (I have > > rfc2047_parameters set, BTW. The subject isn't individually encoded, > > though, so that has no effect here.) Notice that the message itself > > isn't in MIME at all, so I believe a recent post (with a patch) to the > > mutt-dev list applies here: without MIME, Mutt essentially doesn't allow > > internationalized headers, unless you apply his patch (which uses the > > body charset for the header). If you want, I'll forward you the post. > > (The web-based archives for this list suck, so you're almost certainly > > better off letting me forward the copy from my own archives to you.) > > I'd really appreciate that patch. I could also forward it to Debian's > mutt maintainer. Unfortunately, the patch I just forwarded to the list won't do the trick for you. I thought I'd seen one that was going to interpret the entire header internationally, but I must've looked through the mail too quickly :-( > > > Notice it lacks Content-Type, for instance... > > > > It lacks MIME, plain and simple. It's technically a pre-MIME message, > > and Mutt has a totally different set of rules for it :-( > > Oh, I see. I should read the appropriate RFCs... Don't bother - they're unreadable ;-/ > > > Yeah, that might be a bug in the version I run. (that has been fixed > > > already?) > > > > beats me ... if you can forward me a sample message, I can try doing > > \e\n on it and report what happens. . . > > > > > I guess I'll just compile mutt by hand and find out for myself, but > > > please check anyway :-) > > > > done :-) > > I've checked that same message against mutt cvs head and the problem > persists, so... I'm on CVS head minus only a few changes, so if it doesn't work here, it won't work on CVS head. (I update to CVS head every time I see a useful change committed.) > Please send me the patch :-) I forwarded the not-so-it patch to the list. As I said, though, it's useless. There may already be a patch doing exactly what you want floating around for years, for all we know. This sounds like a likely complaint for many Mutt users, UTF or not. If it weren't almost 0400, I'd probably google around a bit. . . - Dave -- 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:
pgpGZIXHJHpGi.pgp
Description: PGP signature