Ken Hornstein <[email protected]> writes: > pretty bogus is nmh simply aborting; I think this is another data > point that says for every character set conversion we need to put in > substitution characters; aborting is simply not reasonable. If people > disagree, let's hear the reasons (the character set conversion in nmh > is pretty scattershot; it all needs to be incorporated into a library > routine so the handling is uniform). Thoughts from others?
Yes, please :) I tried this message in MH-E and mutt. Both actually tried to render it, which surprised me. MH-E didn't do too badly, but mutt actually corrupted the terminal! MH-E showed me this garbage: > You wrote 17 июнÑ\217 2014 г., 11:41:35: I don't know how that will come across; they're some kind of Unicode characters, plus "\217", but not the ones Ken sent. The "\217" is not literally that text, it's Emacs saying "hey, I have this byte that is not valid in this buffer's encoding"; it's treated as a single character by e.g. cursor movement / text selection commands. Anyway, replacing bad characters with '?' seems preferable to me, especially since for nmh there's a terminal to corrupt, as mutt foolishly did... Thanks. _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
