-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alain Bench <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 3, 2002 at 4:43:48 PM +0300, Jussi Ekholm wrote:
>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; x-action=pgp-signed
I wonder why Mutt changes charset from ISO-8859-1 to UTF-8. Is this a
known behaviour - anyone?
>> I send an email, which is traditionally signed, from Mutt 1.5.1i to a
>> person who uses Mutt 1.4i. In this one particular case, scandinavian
>> characters (äöå) were all messed up in his Mutt (1.4i) when he
>> received my email.
>
> Here in your mail, your chars are good, and show up perfectly in my
> Mutt 1.4 on a latin-1 terminal. What's strange is that they were in
> UTF-8 instead of simple latin-1 charset, what would have been
> sufficient. Perhaps you have a bad $send_charset, or perhaps that's
I noticed that as well. All I can think of at the moment, is, that
when you look at the default values of $send_charset, you can see that
there's 'utf-8' along with us-ascii and iso-8859-1. That's pretty much
everything I can think now - as I am using the default values of
$send_charset.
Would it be possibly catastrophous, if I'd modify $send_charset so,
that it would only send mails with character sets of 'ISO-8859-1'? Any
insight?
>> the scands were messed up badly; at least ``ä'' showed up as ``Aþ''
>> and such forth.
>
> You mean 2 chars as "ä"? This is the sort of things you see when
> you look raw an UTF-8 char on a latin-1 terminal without decoding.
Yes, I mean those two chars that look like Aþ. I had to go through
that email and the text my friend had quoted (naturally, written by
me) and replace these two letters with 'ä'. I hate doing this kind of
error correction! :-) Although, Vim makes it a bit easier with its
'c2l' commands and such forth.
By the way - a bit off-topic question; how am I able to (in Vim 6.1)
to find out how this character combination 'Aþ' translates from UTF-8
to ISO-8859-1, because I tried to do something like this:
:s/Aþ/ä/g
But Vim just told me, that no Aþ was found. Still, in future I'd like
to be able to replace as many occurences as there are of "Aþ" with
that simple search-and-replace line.
> Surely a config problem at your friend, I'd say probably a $charset
> or iconv problem, but that needs further investigations.
This friend I had this email discussion, mentioned that his Mutt was
compiled on, I quote: 'SUN platform'. So, it sure needs further
investigations but thanks for your ideas, I'll pass them to this
friend and hopefully he gets his Mutt 1.4i to understand my inline
(text/plain) PGP messages.
Then again, I'm thinking that should I modify the $send_charset from
the default values to only 'ISO-8859-1', as I mentioned above?
Something inside me tells, that if I modify that variable that way,
things will not work as they used to. :-)
>> My traditionally signed mails show up correctly, right?
>
> Well, yes and no.
Make up your mind! ;-)
> Yes, the uml^Wscands show up well, and thanks to the CT parameter
> "x-action=pgp-signed" Mutt knows automatically it must be PGP
> verified.
What is CT parameter?
> But no, the signature is bad in my 1.4:
>
>| [-- PGP output follows -- sam 03 aoû 2002 23:08:52 CEST --]
>| gpg: Signature made sam 03 aoû 2002 15:43:47 CEST using DSA key ID 1410081E
>| gpg: BAD signature from "Jussi Ekholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
>| GPG RETURN VALUE = 1
>| [-- End of PGP output -- BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE --]
Weird.
> ...the same mail is good verified with stock 1.5.1:
>
>| [-- PGP output follows (current time: sam 03 aoû 2002 23:10:17 CEST) --]
>| gpg: Signature made sam 03 aoû 2002 15:43:47 CEST using DSA key ID 1410081E
>| gpg: Good signature from "Jussi Ekholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
>| GPG RETURN VALUE = 0
>| [-- End of PGP output --]
So, as I suspected, Mutt 1.4i seems to have some problems verifying
signatures from 1.5.1.CVS. Or am I completely wrong about this? It's
just that I haven't ran into this kind of situation, where 1.4i would
show that the signature is bad but 1.5.1 would recognize it as a good
one. I'm actually pretty much lost with this, I haven't enough
knowledge to say something for sure...
> ...and is also good outside Mutt:
>
> That's strange... All your other mails verify good in 1.4, but 2.
> The 2 only containing non-Ascii chars (both UTF-8). A bug in 1.4? Or
> a bug in my heavily patched 1.4 setup? Someone else?
This is what interests me very much, too. Does vanilla Mutt 1.4i have
a bug concerning this issue? Anyway, thanks a lot, Alain, for going
through this much trouble to help me figure this thing out. Although,
as I mentioned, my knowledge about PGP signatures and how Mutt handles
them is low, so more enlightened persons could maybe shed some more
informative light on this case.
- --
Jussi Ekholm -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://erppimaa.ihku.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9TQqqAtEARxQQCB4RAs6AAJoDz5tDeIrcHa8wIZjZ/gQgpYz+ywCgzuV+
CU2wnaebiELNExhlh0qyCps=
=uMs0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
