Benny Pedersen wrote: > Subject: Re: פריצת דרך מאתגרת Of course I can see the glyphs but I can't read the meaning. Care to clue us in? I don't see the original message to which you were replying and neither does it seem to be in the mailing list archive.
> Philip Prindeville wrote: > > At the risk of appearing to be (or revealing myself to be ;-) an > > anti-Windows bigot (actually, I'm more of a pro-Open Standards > > cheerleader), we mark all of the "charset=Windows-125[0-8]" > > messages by 4.85... "They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me." -- Nathaniel Lee (on being consigned to a mental institution, circa 17th c.) While I admire the idea in its perverse concept I don't think it will work. (And people complained about collateral damage from SPEWS! :-) > got this in the mailheaders of your mail: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > that screws my head all night :-) Looks fine to me. > 8bit encoding and at the same time utf-8 > i belive one of them needs to be 7bit, i just don't know with one :-) Nope. That is perfectly valid. The only way to transport it 7bit would be with an encoding such as base64 or quoted-printable. I think all internet transports handle 8bit fine these days. Gratuitously encoding messages is a spam sign. > pur squirrelmail that can't qoute unicode in subject but shows unicode ok :( But your reply munged the content of the subject. I restored it for this reply posting, mostly just to lend support for UTF-8. Bob
