Re: Brian May's `Re: Bugs in PGnus' article jams Gnus

[Shenghuo ZHU <zsh@cs.rochester.edu>]

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian May <bmay@csse.monash.edu.au> writes:

>>>>> "ZSH" == Shenghuo ZHU <zsh@cs.rochester.edu> writes:

ZSH> In XEmacs (From the header of the message, I know Brian May use
ZSH> it), the message contains `\207', which is a `control-1'
ZSH> characters and some other `latin-iso8859-1' characters, therefore
ZSH> Gnus used multiply charsets to encode it. Actually, Gnus can
ZSH> handle it as `iso8859-1'. So I fixed it in latest CVS.

ZSH> In Emacs `\207' is an `ascii' characters, so such a message will
ZSH> not happen in Emacs.

Brian> I remain skeptical that this has fixed the problem. What
Brian> happens if I send mail, with another control character, that
Brian> really is non-ASCII?

`\207' is only an example. 

Brian> Why does Gnus have to split the message when it sees a 'bad'
Brian> character?

Now Gnus treats all `bad character' (can not find a MIME charset) as
ASCII. Emacs does this.

Brian> Why can't it encode the entire message, in the same way?

If characters are not in one charset.

Brian> Also, another question: when I saw the my message (from the URL
Brian> previously given), Gnus used 8 bit encoding. I thought 8 bit
Brian> encoding meant no encoding at all, and was considered a bad
Brian> idea for non-ASCII characters? Where am I wrong?

For Gnus, 8 bit encoding meant no encoding at all. Some MTA's do not
like 8 bit encoding, so they translate it to base64 or QP.  Any other
opinions?

-- 
Shenghuo