[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [OT] message formats (was: browser footprint)

Hash: SHA256

Scott Bennett @ 2008/07/22 23:21:
>      On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:02:10 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers <tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> On 2008-07-21 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>      On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:24:22 +0200 "=?UTF-8?Q?Tom=C3=A1s_Arribas?="
>>> <Tomas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> PiBUb3IgaXNuJ3QgdGhlIHJpZ2h0IHBsYWNlIHRvIGJlIG1hbmdsaW5nIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9uIHBy
>>>> b3RvY29scyBpZiBpdAo+IGNhbiBiZSBhdm9pZGVkLiAgVGhhdCdzIGZvciBwcm90b2NvbC1zcGVj
>>>>  [remainder of junk deleted  --SB]
>>>      Is there some good reason for posting crap like the above to this list?
>>> It's bad enough that some insist upon posting their message along with an
>>> HTML duplicate, but at least there is usually some original text content.
>> As per RFC 2045 base64 is a valid transfer encoding for a message body.
>> It was declared correctly in the header, too. What kind of MUA do you
>> use that won't decode this for you?
>      I'm using mailx(1), which is the SysV equivalent of UCBmail, the staple
> of UNIX systems for decades.  It is safe, reliable, and either mailx or
> UCBmail is found on just about every kind of UNIX still in use today.  It
> handles mail headers and plain, ASCII text.  If you want to use other
> character sets in private email, that's fine, but it's not appropriate to do
> so on mailing lists.

this is silly, but....

mailx needs a patch, then.  it may have been created during a time when
ASCII was all that was needed.  but, times change.  lot's of other
people out there use non-ASCII characters, and UTF-8 is starting to
become a standard character set.  like was mentioned, the e-mail
conformed to RFC standards.  if your client can't handle these standards
then you are complaining to the wrong people (read: write to the authors
of mailx! ;-) ).