On 14 Apr 2001, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> And what if the message body doesn't have a charset value?
>
> If the mailer was so broken as to not put the charset in the header,
> then it's probably dumb enough to not set the charset for the body
> either.
>
> If that's the case, well, then you're assbarned either way.
Such mails are very unusual IMO - I think the only sensible way to handle
them is to treat charset as iso-8859-1.
> Jeff
>
> On 25 Mar 2001 22:45:36 -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > > displays underscores for chars > 127 in subject AFAIR, so please fix
> > > > this - that's the most fatal flaw so far that makes it unusable even if it's
> > > > used only for reading mails (i.e. if not caring about encodings the messages
> > > > are sent with Evo are in)!
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but those mailers are totally broken, end of story.
> >
> > Welcome to the real world. There are two conventions in use
> > #1 putting the type into the subject header
> > #2 assuming the message encoding
> >
> > If you don't support these your mailer is junk. Quite possibly perfectly
> > gloriously RFC correct, but still junk
> >
Best regards,
-Vlad
_______________________________________________
evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.helixcode.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
