On 2014-09-13, Yeechang Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > to .vm, but found during testing that a message containing > > áéíóúñ > > was labeled by VM as iso-8859-1 and mangled on display in Gmail (but > displayed correctly upon receipt in VM, because I have > > ; First, don't display iso-8859-1 as-is in default face > (delete "iso-8859-1" vm-mime-default-face-charsets) > ; Then substitute windows-1252 for iso-8859-1 > (add-to-list 'vm-mime-mule-charset-to-coding-alist '("iso-8859-1" utf-8)) > (add-to-list 'vm-mime-mule-charset-to-coding-alist '("us-ascii" utf-8))
The penultimate line above says "when you have determined that a message should be in the iso-8859-1 charset, use the utf-8 coding to send it out. This can never be a right thing to do! (And has nothing to do with windows-1252). Thus your message was labelled iso-8859-1, but actually utf-8, so no wonder Gmail was confused. You could read it in VM, because your mistake reverses itself "when a message says it's iso-8859-1, read it in utf-8". > in .vm). I changed the setting to > > (setq vm-coding-system-priorities '(utf-8)) > > and the next message--labeled as utf-8--displayed correctly in > Gmail. > > Is there any reason to *not* use utf-8 as my one and only outgoing > message-coding system? Not really. I still prefer the legacy coding systems, because a lot of Europeans still use iso-8859-1, and many Chinese still use Big5 or GBK. But everybody should be able to cope with utf-8 nowadays.
