Re: quoted-printable no-go in news?

[Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de>]

merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:

>>>>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> writes:
>
> Matthias> Gnus displays wide hollow boxes instead of the umlauts in
> Matthias> Message-ID: <etvq8vonajs2p1llpmfpnl8d0rehmsdu5u@4ax.com>
> Matthias> (de.rec.fotografie) -- it is declared iso-8859-1 and
> Matthias> quoted-printable; but Gnus nicely and correctly displays
> Matthias> "\200" for a b0rken =80. Later, when following up to the
> Matthias> post, Gnus complains about unprintable characters and offers
> Matthias> to replace, remove, ignore, ... them. It works in
> Matthias> binary-encoded articles.
>
> The only acceptable "encoding" for Usenet at large in the text
> newsgroups that I'm aware of is plain 7-bit ASCII, although I imagine
> iso-8859-1 is probably also acceptable.  Quoted-printable, definitely
> not.  

You're confusing encoding and character set.

de.* is fine with iso-8859-1, -2, -15 or windows-1252, and few will
complain about utf-8, some more about utf-7. People do complain if you
don't declare your character set properly (most common mistake is using
the € -- EUR -- symbol at position \200 and declaring iso-something when
it should've been windows-1252).

quoted-printable is usually silently accepted in de.* -- unless someone
with Outlook (Express)? sends a follow-up: Outlook* junk catapults goof
up the quoting and don't indent properly.

Having said that, why is quoted-printable + iso-8859-1 different than
8bit + iso-8859-1 -- or, in other words: why am I getting those 4
character wide boxes although the posting is technically correct?

-- 
Matthias Andree