Hello Stefan, I agree to what Thomas said in his message.
ST> Well, here is the problem - I use a Russian character set by default. ST> When I send messages in English, I'm always sure that they're going ST> out in us-ascii, no need to change anything here. Now, imagine I'm ST> sending a message in English to some of those servers from the ST> above - in best case, I'll get my message back saying server could not ST> process it because an unknown character set. But I used only English! ST> :-) Do you see my point? ...skipped TF>> What you do is change the encoding despite the sender's explicit TF>> wish. ST> Not exactly. I wish my messages I write in Russian to go out in the ST> character set I choose. But if I write messages in English, I don't ST> want to mess with switching my encoding - all I want is just to write ST> a message and be sure the recipient will be able to read it without ST> any problems :-) First things first, in this case you cannot (and should not) call your character set "Default character set". Then it's something like your "Default character set, but only for everything Russian/Not-low-ASCII/...". Then please, please, please, - say that in The Bat! options. I will be still unhappy with such behaviour, but it would be at least honest, and everybody will know: "Whatever I choose in that dropdown list is _not_ my default charset". Oh, and that won't be completely honest yet: we've been missing another part of my initial message here. When I say "Options - Message encoding - Cyrillic (KOI8-R)" (or, for that matter, whatever non-US-ASCII) _while writing this very message_, TB! would still change it to US-ASCII when queuing the message to Outbox, or sending it immediately. Is _that_ logical? I think in this case I have expressly told The Bat! that I _do_ want to "mess with switching my encoding", haven't I?.. What do you think of _that_? Also, as you see from the quted discussion at nobat.ru, the whole issue shows some massive misunderstanding of (I would even say "illiteracy in reading of") RFCs: people keep saying you'veimplemented it this way because of RFC compliance, while from what you said here follows that it is merely your idea of user convenience, etc. Regards, Maksym. -- Maksym Kozub, MK881-UANIC mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________ Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
