On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:37:30PM -0700, Sam Peterson wrote:
> > My console can display koi8-r. I receive a mail encoded in windows-1251
> > with an unquoted header. Mutt converts the body to koi8-r, and I can
> > read the contents. However, Mutt doesn't know the header charset, so it
> > is displayed without conversion, and I can't read it. For instance, 192
> > is Acyr in 1251, but I see it as yucyr with my koi8-r font.
> >
> > I wish I could specify the header charset manually (as I do with ^E for
> > message bodies) so that Mutt could convert the subject and other fields.
> 
> Using procmail/formail and iconv you might be able to accomplish
> rewriting of the mail headers based on the sender so they are properly
> escaped.

I've looked at procmail a while ago for body translation, but couldn't
find a working solution.

1. All three inboxes I use are IMAP; how can I use procmail with it? I
   can define a macro that would do what I want, but how would it take
   the input, and where it should store the output?

2. Matching the messages by From: or To: isn't reliable since the same
   person can send messages in different encodings. E.g., message from a
   web-based client can be encoded in koi8-r and flagged as iso-8859-1,
   and message from a windows-based MUA can be encoded in windows-1251
   and flagged as iso-8859-1. Let alone rare cases where the same person
   can send mail either in koi8-r or in iso-8859-9, both tagged as
   us-ascii.

3. What to do with raw 8-bit data in headers? I can't see how one can
   have formail convert it to quoted-printable. Of course, I can use
   other converters like iconv, but it would need to know current
   display charset and my guess about the message charset. Let's assume
   I can pass the former on ($charset) via the command line, and the
   latter is read from the keyboard; what about #1 above?

That is why I think it would be much better to have manual charset
override for headers, just like the one we have for bodies. IMHO, this
functionality should be implemented in MUA.


> Bottom line is, those senders are using broken mail clients. Though it
> may seem anti-social, ya might want to drop a few hints to this. I
> don't think mutt's the only mail client that would get confused by
> such email.

I completely agree. However, mutt is the best MUA with regard to bad
input tolerance. I think it lacks this feature, which is already
implemented in the source, but is inapplicable to headers. I would be
happy to see it implemented.


> * ^From: Evil Sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

In my case, it is brokenmailclients.com ;) . Thank you, I'll try that if
I can find a way to execute that with a message on a remote mailbox.


With kind regards,
Baurjan.

Reply via email to