On 27.09.2007 (09:11), Kyle Wheeler wrote: > >set assumed_charset ="us-ascii:windows-1252:latin-1:utf-8" > > For what it's worth, this setting is pretty pointless for most > Westerners. The best setting for Westerners is: > > set assumed_charset="windows-1252" > > The reason this is better than what you had is: > > 1. There's no advantage to assuming a message is us-ascii instead of > windows-1252. Windows-1252 is a superset of us-ascii, so any > message in us-ascii can be assumed to be windows-1252 without loss.
Point taken. > 3. Along similar lines, windows-1252 contains the entire set of > possible values, 0 to 255, and has a character assigned to each. > Thus, no email will *ever* not match windows-1252. The way mutt > figures out that a message isn't in a specific character set is if > there are values in the message that aren't valid in the character > set. For example, in Latin-1, values 0x00 through 0x1F are unused; > thus if they appear in an email, it cannot be encoded in Latin-1. > Windows-1252 may not always be the *right* character set, but > there's no way for mutt to know that. But should I still remove utf8 from that list? What if I receive a message with characters which are NOT in Windows-1252 but in utf8? or will mutt then fall back on the locale settings and manage in any case? (not that it happens very often, I think, but one never knows...) Will they then still match Windows-1252 but with the wrong characters? eyolf -- System going down in 5 minutes.
