MK> Not sure what you are expecting but the message "MSGID: 2:280/5555 MK> 35a3d7b0" I am replying to shows here as ascii
That is more or less what I expected...
MK> with an additional 44 unneeded linefeeds. I am guessing some MK> obsoleted DOS-think
Keep om guessing. The point is that you were unable to determine what encoding was used. Just as I expected. You schorched me for being unable to verify the encoding. Now I caught you out on the same defiecency. The difference is that I never claimed it was possible, weheras you did.
You might have figured it out if you had some relevant knowledge or the help of a Scandinavian HAM. Tghe point is that you could not tell from the message alone.
You will find the answer in the next message.
MvdV>> LATIN1 is not a character encoding scheme that is "current MvdV>> practise" in Fidonet.
MK> Understood. Not really an issue unless of course you are really using MK> iso-8859-1 with the LATIN-1 alias and wonder why the Apache server, or MK> any other glibc based httpd, isn't displaying your characters MK> correctly.
As I wrote before, it is not my problem.
MvdV>> It is not the problem of Fidonet, that he can't do it right.
MK> It isn't him but the alias for iso-8859-1 instead.
No. If you want to read fidonet messages, yiu have to play by the fdionet rules. And in fidonet the identifier for iso-8859-1 is LATIN-1.
Not only in fidonet BTW. The unicode consortium shares this POV.