On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 05:26:55PM +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote: > > As to where it comes from, the character is in the signature file. I > > wouldn't expect the MUA to remove characters from the signature file. > > Not in general, but this one is special. ;-)
Not from mutt's view. > > Why is it important to have this character in the file? > > In a text file without BOM, the editor must simply guess encoding. (not again :) there was a very lengthy discussion on locales and editors on mutt-dev recently)) No. There's something called "locales" which must be setup correctly for all tools in a central place. This works nicely... except for broken tools (i.e. editors) that put BOM in files. On Windows, where BOM IIRC originates the lack of clearly defined locales may make this necessary but not on Unix. It'll fail sooner or later with the tools used. Also note that the file is not necessarily utf-8, thus no BOM and no indication of character set and encoding. In that the case the user is responsible for this. In my opinion, this counts for utf-8 files, too. > You see it is not really necessary in my signature files, at least if I > edit them on UTF-8 linux systems only (that's not the case though). I > could easily remove it from my signature files and would have no > problems with mutt and Vim. The do it... :) In mutt, you can even set $signature to a pipe, i.e. a script that gets the signature as argument and prints it with BOM: set signature="script.sh signature|" or even: set signature="iconv -f ... -t ... < ~/.signature|" Rocco
