MK> I disagree. It is probably the most unreliable source along with other MK> misinformation that I won't get into in this particular echo but could MK> easily atand as evidence why the above quote is disagreeable.
It is the ONLY currently available and more importantly already widespreed source. There are nothing else currently and I doubt will ever be. Are you don't like currently used standard with "level" legacy? Make your own, implement that into all popular editors/gates, convince majority of fidonet users to switch. And we all will be happy. ^_^ But scrapping CHRS from messages isn't a solution, for example your current message clearly indicates that:
MK> True. However if only ascii and utf-8 text messages were the only MK> supported encodings then verification is indeed possible and as a rule MK> highly accurate
If only ascii and utf-8 codepages were used then any verification is not needed at all, because ascii symbols have the same positions in utf-8. But that's not the case. Situation for cyrillic users is actually worse as UTF-8 can't be used there at all currently. Because all unicode message will be completely ruined by non-unicode ready editor. Not just some insignificant portion of it. And wast majority of users still use these ancient editors (>90% as least).
BTW using codepages other than CP866 also still prohibited by rules in majority of the ex-ussr echos.
MK> whereas with 8 bit encodings all bets are off and verification is a MK> waste of time as well as unneeded.
Again why it need to verified? It is author's job to provide all necessary technical information needed for properly processing his messages on receivers end. If he doesn't want to then he is "Сам себе злобный буратино".
MK> Same with CHRS being a total waste of bytes as it means nothing and MK> does nothing ... or at least *should* do nothing.
Really? Miserable additional 10-15 bytes per message in 2017 is a big deal? Great argument... Delete your useless tagline and you are done. ^_^ And your "nothing" mantra exists only in your imagination and has nothing to do with reality.
KK>> especially in fidonet where dominating codepage is CP866 MK> That doesn't make it right. In fact I think it is a very good arguement MK> as well as evidence as to what is wrong in fidonet.
What is right? All fidonet users must be using UTF-8 and only UTF-8? And what if they don't want to? Because you know... don't need to? They perfectly fine with current restricted codepage they are using for several decades already. Also you said something about bytes, for cyrilic audience UTF-8 will bloat every message to almost twice in size.
KK>> My position didn't changed since then MK> That is because we have discussed this before. Now that you have been MK> shown the errors of your ways
Which errors exactly? You weren't made a single argument, just a bunch of purposely garbaged messages and continue to produce messages whose prone to mojibake.
MK> I am positive that your stance is in dire need of adjustment. MK> :::evil grin::: Петросян...
--- Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) * Origin: Via 2:5019/40 NNTP (GaNJaNET STaTi0N, Smolensk) (2:5019/40.1)
