Ken Hornstein <kenh(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com> 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
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers