Re: mutt-1.5.0, was Re: \223 and \224

2002-01-28 Thread Jeremy Blosser
On Jan 28, Russell Hoover [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.0i > > > Could this mean that a 1.5.0 release is around the corner? > I'm asking because, if it is, I'd like to tell my admin to > hold off upgrading from 1.3.25 to 1.3.27, if 1.5.0

Re: mutt-1.5.0, was Re: \223 and \224

2002-01-28 Thread David T-G
Russell -- ...and then Russell Hoover said... % % On Fri 01/25/02 at 05:27 PM -0600, % Jeremy Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: % ... % User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.0i % % % Could this mean that a 1.5.0 release is around the corner? % I'm asking because, if it i

Re: mutt-1.5.0, was Re: \223 and \224

2002-01-28 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 10:21:53 -0500, Russell Hoover wrote: > Could this mean that a 1.5.0 release is around the corner? In CVS only, AFAIK. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: - 100% validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International d

mutt-1.5.0, was Re: \223 and \224

2002-01-28 Thread Russell Hoover
On Fri 01/25/02 at 05:27 PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Jeremy Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:27:19 -0600 Subject: Re: \223 and \224 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "Christopher S. Swingley&q

Re: \223 and \224

2002-01-25 Thread David T-G
Chris, et al -- ...and then Christopher S. Swingley said... % % > I think one that detected such chars, or perhaps detected LookOut! % > headers, and changed 8859-1 to CP1252 was posted. Check for messages % > with 8859 and 1252 in the body. % % That was the trick (8859 in mutt-users). Looks

Re: \223 and \224

2002-01-25 Thread Christopher S. Swingley
> I think one that detected such chars, or perhaps detected LookOut! > headers, and changed 8859-1 to CP1252 was posted. Check for messages > with 8859 and 1252 in the body. That was the trick (8859 in mutt-users). Looks like the solution is: set display_filter=demoroniser It's a Perl scr

Re: \223 and \224

2002-01-25 Thread David T-G
Chris -- ...and then Christopher S. Swingley said... % % This has probably been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the % mailing list archives, so here goes: It is there; I remember it. % % Is there any way around Microsoft's broken ISO-8859-1 character set? % The ` or ' characters

Re: \223 and \224

2002-01-25 Thread Jeremy Blosser
On Jan 25, Christopher S. Swingley [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > That sounds familiar, but I'm not sure where I've seen that. It's > certainly not as common as the \222 - \224 issue. It looks like sed > won't do the trick because it doesn't understand octal (\222 - \224) or > hexidecimal (\x92 -

Re: \223 and \224

2002-01-25 Thread Christopher S. Swingley
Quoting Nick Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Is there any way around Microsoft's broken ISO-8859-1 character set? > > The ` or ' characters show up in Mutt as \222 (contractions) \223 > > (left single quote) and \224 (right single quote). In the original > > file they're 0x92, 0x93 and 0x94 (not

Re: \223 and \224

2002-01-25 Thread Nick Wilson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 * and then Christopher S. Swingley blurted > Is there any way around Microsoft's broken ISO-8859-1 character set? > The ` or ' characters show up in Mutt as \222 (contractions) \223 > (left single quote) and \224 (right single quote). In the ori

\223 and \224

2002-01-25 Thread Christopher S. Swingley
Hello, This has probably been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the mailing list archives, so here goes: Is there any way around Microsoft's broken ISO-8859-1 character set? The ` or ' characters show up in Mutt as \222 (contractions) \223 (left single quote) and \224 (right single quo