From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#35507: Gnus mojibakifies UTF-8 text/x-patch attachments from Thunderbird Date: Fri, 03 May 2019 16:20:19 +0100 Message-ID: <87bm0jef9o.fsf@tcd.ie> References: <44a26585-7980-378c-9262-a567ddd3e617@cs.ucla.edu> <865zqv3tc2.fsf@gmail.com> <838svqqdp2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d0l1o8p7.fsf@gmail.com> <86v9ytz5nk.fsf@gmail.com> <87a7g5njz1.fsf@gmail.com> <83imusq2zb.fsf@gnu.org> <87pnozfxgm.fsf@tcd.ie> <83k1f7muxz.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="8404"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 35507@debbugs.gnu.org, andrewjmoreton@gmail.com, npostavs@gmail.com To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 03 23:17:28 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hMfYU-0012u5-3L for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 May 2019 23:17:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42159 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hMZzz-0004Dw-K6 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 May 2019 11:21:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58664) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hMZzj-0004Cl-C6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2019 11:21:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hMZzi-0001MA-Fp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2019 11:21:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:35791) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hMZzi-0001M5-CQ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2019 11:21:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hMZzh-000384-Sg; Fri, 03 May 2019 11:21:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, bugs@gnus.org Resent-Date: Fri, 03 May 2019 15:21:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 35507 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs,gnus X-GNU-PR-Keywords: fixed Original-Received: via spool by 35507-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B35507.155689683211973 (code B ref 35507); Fri, 03 May 2019 15:21:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 35507) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 May 2019 15:20:32 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49335 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hMZzD-000372-PP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2019 11:20:32 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ed1-f53.google.com ([209.85.208.53]:34124) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hMZz9-00036n-M3 for 35507@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2019 11:20:28 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ed1-f53.google.com with SMTP id w35so4772459edd.1 for <35507@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 03 May 2019 08:20:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tcd-ie.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=AZ3iRXSsvBP6RbwhktcT40Pam3e6KXO9ikQ7iSRjLWY=; b=A+R7UklPBHPbYgFJemnLnnFFR1U0051e4M7ohrPKeG2wpKmHlzldvW3cU1gF6JNhea eCdTI6H59BXBZ5ephB7efcrKe8v14xj2Wx7tcE3ysv8FqhXGJQiuQOr1u3yEAN1j3sTH FMV0D+g+rpcC7Yb+j4EnZvguJheVxYkieAplhcQoAbK8SOtrEtruHmupBBIcOQHRsrD3 kNzOcVf0K/eJjDA0bgQ4rk6ppdBh6+fLQE0y4SthIrDg91rWbk2eZFgHD03l2RdeBprS 1+nKJ0u7r4HOYyprBjkV/Po8/Xs7mGDQkzWTvQcyVulgNMiOQ9zI9qVYze34tbzaypEX HBuA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=AZ3iRXSsvBP6RbwhktcT40Pam3e6KXO9ikQ7iSRjLWY=; b=F+AzKUx0xYgsQ2vtUY7EtrnKbFBMRN34dIFuj0RwmBm5Ullt+IIvMv7aVSwZFXPjnX kVySY4ly44/34H3Dkmuof3+0xfjCJu4xb1He3vx3T3wTZ7PGkKnUnMfranntWfOidoe2 gI9vdjU6Hla5u13rb7P6VSV1F5l7x7mp4rG526JQFBqe+RnFsMBtwt4557gL6O0LxgUB al8bYELDESbWQakEbKELIUt4kL785yS6y0pzp4YdC67Z8205NqbOCfGTthFTXrTtXuMD vosuWZ4+Ohu70qfLmBNstEt1jjEVK7MxOCM3Ep5Y7raqgNUhPcjstpqBW6X3PP5hbI59 EPIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUrK8f0LKgDIZ+l994og1Wmw/0o8luqVf4haaCChOfNueezVjOM ut4AsFXHOiSDY0YUwpvMHEO6sA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwj3WKdhFO7Q3JGnfxfGrFyhXEmayHvEArb8ZKXerNUkjXxabkKE7NbP2FZaF+nnuWoZYdV6w== X-Received: by 2002:a50:b062:: with SMTP id i89mr9163481edd.85.1556896821862; Fri, 03 May 2019 08:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost ([89.101.223.218]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g32sm635206ede.88.2019.05.03.08.20.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 03 May 2019 08:20:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83k1f7muxz.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 3 May 2019 18:14:32 +0300") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:158700 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" >> Cc: Noam Postavsky , <35507@debbugs.gnu.org>, >> Date: Fri, 03 May 2019 15:02:01 +0100 >> >> Question following an initial reading of (info "(elisp) Coding System >> Basics"): would it be better in this case to use prefer-utf-8 instead of >> undecided? If not, why not? > > Because we have no reason to prefer UTF-8 in this case. No one tells > us that x-patch will be predominantly encoded in UTF-8. > > The RFC doesn't say that UTF-8 is the default, either, and > text/x-patch is not defined anywhere with that default. Which means > there's no default, and in that case 'undecided' is better, because it > heeds to the preferences of the user. Right, thanks for explaining. -- Basil