On Friday, November 22, 2002 12:17 PM, Andreas Metzler said:
> > "Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Olympia_2012_/_MV_M=E4rz_der_WJ_L=FCbeck?="
>
> > which in the receiving MUA translates to:
> > "Subject: Olympia 2012 / MV März der WJ Lübeck"
>
> > (%auml; and ü of course displayed as the correct umlaut)
>
> > wouldn't it be better to have a filter doing the
> straight-foward encoding?
> > in worst case a perl one-liner.
>
> Because you do not know it is iso-8859-1. It could be UTF-8, Latin9
> or BIG5, too. Checking the content type of the body does not help
> either, because mail-programs that fail to encode the headers properly
> often don't declare the chatset of the body, too. Additionallly there
> is no guarantee/requirement that the header even has the same charset.
> cu andreas
Good point.
And as long as the recipient is solely english-speaking environment, it
would also deliver the wanted result.
But in a miltilingual or non-ascii environment, valuable mails could get
lost.
<Sigh>A If the MUA programmers had a better unterstanding of the Email RFC,
we wouldn't have such problems at all </sigh>
As I've understood from the original posting understood that the real cause
for the request is to avoid spam:
( On Friday, November 22, 2002 11:57 AM, tsh@??? said:)
>
>
> Oh, lovely. Thanks very much.
> One or two people asked why I would want to do this.
> I dont, personally, but some users do. Spam from China/Korea I think.
Personally, I would solve the spam-problem with a spam-filter. This sounds
like a perfect task for a bayesian spam filter.
But this requires the caustomer to a) take time to understand how a spam
filter works, b) have the time, ressources and possibilites to install it
and c) be willing use it. These conditions cannot always be fulfilled.
Regards
Arnulv
