On 2009-02-10 18:16:43 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 04:33:23PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > FYI, I prefer the current one because iso-8859-1 takes less space > > than utf-8 (note that on the network, mail is not compressed), > > It only makes a difference if you use non-ASCII characters AND > no characters outside iso-8859-1 (like the € sign) in an email.
So is the change of $send_charset. So, I suppose that these cases are important enough. > And the size advantage in these cases would typically be something > around 1%, so not really noticable. This depends on the language and the length of the message. There's much more 1% of accented characters in French text, for instance. So, it can be noticeable. > > Also, using "us-ascii:utf-8" will not affect received mail, so that > > if a user wants to deal with UTF-8 only, he must have some tools for > > charset conversion when receiving mail (and changing $send_charset > > would just be some minor configuration change for a specific usage). > > As already discussed, having more charsets in the mix can cause problems > when sending patches in the body of an email (e.g. when submitting > patches to linux-kernel). Well, your tools must cope with messages with different charsets in a mailbox (and encodings other then 7bit/8bit). If they don't, they are broken. Also, this is for a specific usage. Other users may prefer iso-8859-1 (when possible) for their specific usage. There's no default that would make everyone happy. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[email protected]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
