[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [nmh-workers] nmh 1.7.1: both bcc and dcc broken for mts sendmail/pi

From: Ralph Corderoy
Subject: Re: [nmh-workers] nmh 1.7.1: both bcc and dcc broken for mts sendmail/pipe
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 14:51:03 +0000

Hi Ken,

> > The «"» around `Blind-Carbon-Copy' should be \(lq and \(rq
> So, in a mostly unrelated note ... I couldn't help noticing that Ralph
> used guillemets («») in one of his messages on this thread (way to
> push non-US-ASCII characters, Ralph!)

I find they're useful because they're visually distinct from anything
that might look like it should be part of the pipeline, etc.,
I'm quoting.  In Vim, the digraphs, entered after Ctrl-K, for them are
`<<' and `>>', so they're readily to hand.  And misappropriating them
from the French pleases my Englishness.

> Ralph's original note containing the guillemets (Message-Id
> <address@hidden>) was text/plain, a
> character set of utf-8, and encoded using quoted-printable.

The QP is Mailman's meddling.  I gave it
`Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit'.

> Valdis was the first reply to that (Message-ID
> <address@hidden>), and HIS email was
> text/plain, character set iso-8859-1, and encoded using
> quoted-printable.  He quoted Ralph's message, and the guillemets were
> encoded as =AB and =BB.  Which seems correct to me.


> Paul Fox replied to Valdis's note (Message-Id
> <address@hidden>), and THAT
> note was text/plain, character set UTF-8, encoded using
> quoted-printable ...  but it seems like this was the start of where
> things went off the rails.

Yes.  I'm sure Paul won't mind being blamed.  :-)

> Further muddying the waters ... when Ralph replied to Mark's email,
> those Unicode Replacement Characters somehow got converted back to the
> correct guillemets (=C2=AB and =C2=BB).  Which means Ralph has perhaps
> the most intelligent reply quoting program ever and he should
> immediately share it as it would revolutionize AI, or he went back and
> manually corrected it when he replied to Mark's note.  I'm 50/50 on
> which one of those scenarios is more likely.

I fixed it manually when composing in vim.  Didn't see the point in
deciding to keep those lines as context and yet mislead by their

Cheers, Ralph.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]