On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 07:58:46AM EDT, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach David Yitzchak Cohen <lists+mutt_users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > [2004.07.16.2108 +0200]: > > You'll notice that this message comes out tagged as us-ascii, as well. > > Sure. It was signed too. I never had a problem with signed messages. > > Somewhat confuzzled, but grateful for your resonses, My bad, you're right. I _always_ send MIME because I always sign my mail (and never use traditional_pgp in lists). I kinda forgot about that. I guess I'll just try to duck out of this conversation before too many tomatoes get tossed my way. Running away, - Dave BTW - Just out of curiosity, why do you bother setting the long chain in send_charset, if you've moved to Unicode? Unicode has one purpose in life: to replace the old ISO-8859 set of mutually-incompatible standards with a new self-consistent one. The idea behind Unicode is that you send mail encoded with some Unicode transform (usually UTF, more commonly known as UTF-8), and the recipient converts it into native UCS, and then works in Unicode, thereby eliminating the need for legacy ISO-8859-x support. By deliberately preferring ISO-8859-x over Unicode transforms, you're basically guaranteeing that Unicode's mission is never accomplished, since systems will still need support for the legacy ISO-8859 standards. (It makes far more sense to put the burden on non-Unicode recipients to try converting your messages into a charset they feel comfortable with. People without Unicode support are running on infrerior systems, and they might as well get used to it.) As the comment in my RC file indicates, the only reason I have us-ascii in there at all is that any UTF system can read us-ascii by necessity, and if the message can be interpreted by a standard 7-bit system too, I might as well mark it as such so non-Unicode systems know they can also read it (rather than fooling them into thinking they can't). Going out of my way to convert _from_ Unicode to a charset that Unicode was specifically designed to obsolete, though, just seems totally silly, IMHO. -- 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:
pgpKdFNyjgqpo.pgp
Description: PGP signature