Re: utf

To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: utf
From: rhkramer@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 14:20:17 -0400
Message-id: <[🔎] 201804041420.17606.rhkramer@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] pa304e$m0n$1@blaine.gmane.org>
References: <[🔎] 92aa2f6d-d39f-61a6-311b-f0c45b00b9c9@gmx.com> <[🔎] 20180403211956.GA1741492@phare.normalesup.org> <[🔎] pa304e$m0n$1@blaine.gmane.org>

On Wednesday, April 04, 2018 12:58:57 PM deloptes wrote:
> And regarding the mbox thing, well mbox was depreciated for many reasons. I
> guess if it was that good it wouldn't be depreciated.

Oh, I wasn't aware that mbox was deprecated--can you shed more light on that.  
AFAIK, it is not defined in an RFC and is used by quite a few email programs.

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: utf
  - From: Joel Roth <joelz@pobox.com>
- Re: utf
  - From: deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com>

References:
- utf
  - From: mess-mate <mess-mate@gmx.com>
- Re: utf
  - From: Nicolas George <george@nsup.org>
- Re: utf
  - From: deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: Re: mbox vs maildir vs better formats [Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf)]
Next by Date: Re: Invalid UTF-8 byte? (was: Re: utf)
Previous by thread: Re: utf
Next by thread: Re: utf
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread