You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Philip Prindeville <ph...@redfish-solutions.com> on 2006/05/18 16:47:48 UTC
Re: Filtering windows-1252 charset
Jonathan Armitage wrote:
>I see some spam with "windows-1252" or other unwanted character sets at
>the start of the subject. I reject them via an Exim ACL, so SA doesn't
>even have to scan them.
>
>
Which brings up the subject... How legitimate is email sent as
windows-1252?
I see absolutely no reason to send it, since it offers no advantage over
iso-8859-1
or utf-8, and the RFC's are pretty clear about using the "smallest"
encoding that
will fit a message, i.e. usascii => iso-8859-1 => utf-8 (in that order).
Further, if you're in the Unix world (or more broadly, not in the
Windows world),
why would you want to use vendor-specific encodings for no reason other than
they're the broken defaults Microsoft chose to use?
-Philip
Re: Filtering windows-1252 charset
Posted by Craig McLean <cr...@fukka.co.uk>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Jonathan Armitage wrote:
>
>> I see some spam with "windows-1252" or other unwanted character sets at
>> the start of the subject. I reject them via an Exim ACL, so SA doesn't
>> even have to scan them.
>>
>>
>
> Which brings up the subject... How legitimate is email sent as
> windows-1252?
I have a bunch of stuff from paypal and ebay, and much more, which
include this charset.
I'm not attempting to answer the philosophical question, just the
statistical one.
C.
- --
Craig McLean http://fukka.co.uk
craig@fukka.co.uk Where the fun never starts
Powered by FreeBSD, and GIN!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEbJwCMDDagS2VwJ4RAgcdAJ0bIf+EPRmsGEFhqeamY6W5dWBwVgCeLbPf
dALIAlLZans4C6EM6R17nyU=
=IUJJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Filtering windows-1252 charset
Posted by Philip Prindeville <ph...@redfish-solutions.com>.
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Philip Prindeville wrote on Thu, 18 May 2006 08:47:48 -0600:
>
>
>> How legitimate is email sent as
>> windows-1252?
>>
>
> Very, because broken Windows clients use it.
>
> Kai
>
Ah, the "Strong Arm school of standards enforcement." ;-)
-Philip
Re: Filtering windows-1252 charset
Posted by Kai Schaetzl <ma...@conactive.com>.
Philip Prindeville wrote on Thu, 18 May 2006 08:47:48 -0600:
> How legitimate is email sent as
> windows-1252?
Very, because broken Windows clients use it.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
RE: Filtering windows-1252 charset
Posted by Bret Miller <br...@wcg.org>.
> Which brings up the subject... How legitimate is email sent as
> windows-1252?
>
> I see absolutely no reason to send it, since it offers no
> advantage over
> iso-8859-1
> or utf-8, and the RFC's are pretty clear about using the "smallest"
> encoding that
> will fit a message, i.e. usascii => iso-8859-1 => utf-8 (in
> that order).
>
> Further, if you're in the Unix world (or more broadly, not in the
> Windows world),
> why would you want to use vendor-specific encodings for no
> reason other than
> they're the broken defaults Microsoft chose to use?
I don't sending a specific character set is a choice most users make. I
have 84 messages in my inbox with windows-1252 character set. A lot of
those are personal messages sent by friends that are clueless as far as
their computers are concerned. So, unless you can get Microsoft to
configure their clients so they don't send that character set by
default, or unless you don't have any friends with Windows, you might
research it a bit more before you block.
Bret