Re: [Nmh-workers] Understanding nmh (aka. What's the goal) [ really non-ASCII message bodies ]

[Peter Maydell]

Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>Peter Maydell wrote:
>> (In fact I think we should go ahead and change the behaviour for
>> not-plain-ASCII bodies even if the user didn't pass the -attach
>> switch, but I'm guessing I might get argued down on that.)
>
>I agree.  I've never used -attach, instead sticking with #-directives,
>and yet still send UTF-8 bodies with =C2=A3 in text/plain emails with no
>attachments by mistake.  This bug doesn't depend on using -attach.

Yes. Perhaps we should make the condition be "do this if the
incoming draft does not already have MIME headers" ? That
way if the user has script-type solutions that pass an
already-sensible draft to send we don't mess it up.

>>  if (*p != '\t' && (*p >= 127 || *p < 32) {
>>     non_ascii = 1;
>
>In that case, would plumping for character literals be nicer?
>
>    if (*p < ' ' && *p != '\t' || *p > '~') {
>        non_ascii = 1;

I don't care much either way on the style, I just want the logic
to be right.

(Also I'd just like to note that I had to manually edit out some
quoted-printable encoding before I could send this mail with nmh,
in a passing demonstration of our poor MIME handling :-))

-- PMM