At 20.05 +0100 04-09-03, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Based on what I see that wouldn't help. My charset for sending mail
is iso-8859-15 (or these days UTF-8). But mis-labeled mail
used to be mostly chinese, with a recent trend for russian.
(Most, but not quite all, mis-labeled mail is SPAM.)
What my mail tool does at present wasn't deliberate but a
feature of way perl's Encode module works - given something
claiming to be ASCII but having high-bit chars I get them as
replacement characters - this flags that there is a problem
clearly enough!
That sounds like a reasonable solution, too. But a good
mailer should perhaps, in that case, allow the recipient to
modify the charset of the received body parts, in order to
make them readable.
This is maybe not a standards issue, although I think IETF
could help the implementors by giving some advice also on
this case.
I have always had the opinion that a good standard should
never contain the word "undefined". The word "undefined"
indicates that something is incomplete in the standard. And
when something is incomplete, different implementors will
do different things, and then interoperability will suffer.
--
Jacob Palme <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/