gnus-summary-save-article: xemacs better than GNU emacs?

gnus-summary-save-article: xemacs better than GNU emacs?

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 578 bytes --]


Hello

I am using GNU emacs 25.1.50.1
and mua-gnus 0.16.

Using GNU emacs
I have set
(setq gnus-default-article-saver 'gnus-summary-save-in-file)

and saved a message,
Now when I opened the file with GNU emacs it looked terrible a lot of
chars such as (not printable)
\342\200\213 ....

now when I opened it with Xemacs (21.5.34 Mule) it looked ok 

I attach both screenshots I am not sure who is here the culprit, because
I had difficulties to open UTF8 files in GNU emacs which contains such
chars. Maybe GNU emacs is stricter with respect to UTF* than Xemacs?

Uwe Brauer 


[-- Attachment #2: emacs-gnus-utf8.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 19216 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: xemacs-gnus-utf8.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 4953 bytes --]

Re: gnus-summary-save-article: xemacs better than GNU emacs?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> writes:

> Hello
>
> I am using GNU emacs 25.1.50.1
> and mua-gnus 0.16.
>
> Using GNU emacs
> I have set
> (setq gnus-default-article-saver 'gnus-summary-save-in-file)
>
> and saved a message,
> Now when I opened the file with GNU emacs it looked terrible a lot of
> chars such as (not printable)
> \342\200\213 ....
>
> now when I opened it with Xemacs (21.5.34 Mule) it looked ok 
>
> I attach both screenshots I am not sure who is here the culprit, because
> I had difficulties to open UTF8 files in GNU emacs which contains such
> chars. Maybe GNU emacs is stricter with respect to UTF* than Xemacs?

Check the docstring of `gnus-default-article-saver'. It mentions that
the function symbols that that option points to can have properties, one
of which is :decode. I'm guessing this is the source of your issue.

(get 'gnus-summary-save-in-file :decode)-->t

Maybe play with that and see if it fixes the issue?

E

Re: gnus-summary-save-article: xemacs better than GNU emacs?

[Uwe Brauer]

    > Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> writes:

    > Check the docstring of `gnus-default-article-saver'. It mentions
    > that the function symbols that that option points to can have
    > properties, one of which is :decode. I'm guessing this is the
    > source of your issue.

That sounds reasonable, thanks for pointing it out, however, at least
for me, the docstring does not really explain how to include the :decode
property.

> (get 'gnus-summary-save-in-file :decode)-->t

I tried that out: (for me this was not obvious,) and saved again the
message

> Maybe play with that and see if it fixes the issue?

It does, thanks a lot

Uwe 

Re: gnus-summary-save-article: xemacs better than GNU emacs?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> writes:

>     > Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> writes:
>
>     > Check the docstring of `gnus-default-article-saver'. It mentions
>     > that the function symbols that that option points to can have
>     > properties, one of which is :decode. I'm guessing this is the
>     > source of your issue.
>
> That sounds reasonable, thanks for pointing it out, however, at least
> for me, the docstring does not really explain how to include the :decode
> property.
>
>> (get 'gnus-summary-save-in-file :decode)-->t
>
> I tried that out: (for me this was not obvious,) and saved again the
> message
>
>> Maybe play with that and see if it fixes the issue?
>
> It does, thanks a lot

Glad that worked! Using symbol properties is definitely an unusual way of
providing customization -- properties like that are usually reserved for
package-internal stuff. Anyway, glad the problem's resolved.

gnus-summary-save-article: Xemacs better than GNU emacs?

[Uwe Brauer]

Hello

I am using GNU emacs 25.1.50.1
and mua-gnus 0.16.

Using GNU emacs
I have set
(setq gnus-default-article-saver 'gnus-summary-save-in-file)

and saved a message,
Now when I opened the file with GNU emacs it looked terrible a lot of
chars such as (not printable)
\342\200\213 ....

now when I opened it with Xemacs (21.5.34 Mule) it looked ok 

I attach both screenshots, in the next message, since I am not sure
whether otherwise the message gets trapped by the SPAM filter.

I am not sure who is here the culprit, because
I had difficulties to open UTF8 files in GNU emacs which contains such
chars. Maybe GNU emacs is stricter with respect to UTF* than Xemacs?

Uwe Brauer