Roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the FT list digests I receive arrive as
attachments rather than email texts because the "message uses a character set
that is not supported by the Internet Service." I'm not sure whether this is
afailing of my mail in particular or not, but I realize it almost always and
almost only happens whenever discussion of Rot Hafen comes up. I think the
umlaut over the O makes my mailer choke.
If I'm the only person this happens to, then I'll deal with it. If this
happens to others, may I ask, Los and others, that you try Rot (and other
words) without the Umlaut or other accent marks a few times as a test? I, for
one, would really appreciate it.
> On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:10:19 -0500, "Izenberg, Noam" writes:
I've seen this before, and a lot of times it happen because people are posting
in html ot other MIME types. So let me state this again:
Please send only straight ascii email to the list. No mime, no attachments,
etc.
> On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Izenberg, Noam wrote:
> Roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the FT list digests I receive arrive as
i've never seen that particular error, but i do often get messages with the
text in an attachment as well as in the body. a while ago, i had trouble where
a message was broken up on the degree character, which isn't in the ascii
character set and so required loopy processing.
ah, the joys of open systems!
Tom
> Izenberg, Noam wrote:
> If I'm the only person this happens to, then I'll deal with it. If
Be advised the only thing I do to get the umlaut in the email is cut and post
that particular letter into my email, other than that it's no diffeernt than
any other eamil. It's not like I'm doing HTML.
Los
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Izenberg, Noam wrote:
> > Roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the FT list digests I receive arrive as
I don't have a problem with it, using Outlook Express (comes with IE4).
> On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Los wrote:
> Be advised the only thing I do to get the umlaut in the email is cut
understood. this is all quite interesting (for the technical pedant such as
myself, anyway). i had an email broken by a degree sign (coming from a
somewhat broken lotus notes), but never by an umlaut.
i have, however, noticed attachments containing duplicate messages.
> It's not like I'm doing HTML.
i don't think anyone on this list does. although schoon has posted in
"text/enriched" once or twice, which is pretty exotic - that's a
formatted-text format that was defined years ago and obsoleted by HTML
version one. i'm at a loss to explain it's presence in a modern-day
email.
Tom
> On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Los wrote:
> Be advised the only thing I do to get the umlaut in the email is cut
> understood. this is all quite interesting (for the technical pedant
That was my broken lotus notes (well, my work's anyway) but the text that
contained the degree symbol was straight fromm Schoon's original posting on
that
section. His posting already seemed to be RTF (Rich-Text Format) which
seems to
allow the upper-ascii characters.
(for those interested, upper-ascii is NOT actually ascii. Ascii is a
7-bit
character set, the upper half is undefined, which is why we have all this
silliness, and PC's especially have had to fiddle with dozens of
upper-ascii
'codepages' to redefine these upper characters.)
Microsoft still supports, and in some respects, even encourages RTF. Word
especially is a major culprit. It seems if you have a plain text document,
then
put in a non-ascii character, it sort of internally converts things to
RTF...or
some such wierdness.
> i have, however, noticed attachments containing duplicate messages.
> It's not like I'm doing HTML.
> i don't think anyone on this list does. although schoon has posted in
As noted, it was Schoon's RTF that contained the degree symbol, and in my
re-reading it, I failed to notice it, or else I would have stripped it
out. Microsoft still supports, and in some respects, even encourages RTF. Word
especially is a major culprit. It seems if you have a plain text document,
then
put in a non-ascii character, it sort of internally converts things to
RTF...or
some such wierdness.
But still, better RTF mail than HTML mail...geez, that stuff is horrid.
> On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Jared E Noble wrote:
> >On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Los wrote:
aha. the plot thickens.
> His posting already seemed to be RTF (Rich-Text Format) which seems
no, no, not RTF, text/enriched. rfc 1563, amended by 1896:
http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/computing/internet/rfc/rfc1896.txt
it's like a simpler version of html, sort of, only it actually has some
features html doesn't. it's quite, quite mad. apparently it's intended to go
on being used in email until html is mature enough to replace it.
> Microsoft still supports, and in some respects, even encourages RTF.
rtf is still in use. the latest java includes a huge package of stuff for
reading, writing and editing rtf. until recently, i wrote essays in rtf with
wordpad as it meant i didn't have to install a real word processor,
and i could fit files on single floppy disks :-).
> Word
well, MS are supposed to be going to XML for everything; that can only make
things worse. don't get me wrong, i think xml is great; it's a really powerful
language. but MS can use that power for Evil (tm)...
> >> It's not like I'm doing HTML.
Word
> especially is a major culprit. It seems if you have a plain text
whoa, deja lu...
Tom