Re: Rmail changes for Emacs 22

[Dave Love]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> Personally, I think emacs-mule is not a good idea in this case, since 
> mbox is not Emacs-private format, so some other software should be able 
> to read it.

I don't see how that follows, but any file that has to represent the
full range of Emacs characters has to be stored in the internal
encoding.  I don't know what the rationale is for any of this, or why
rmail uses emacs-mule now.

> A good alternative would be to encode each message as what 
> the charset= header says (and add/fix such a header if there is none, or 
> if the one that's there lies).

I doubt you should do anything to them, especially as you have no
assurance any headers are correct.