Apologies for double posting. I sent this to the MM3 list by mistake earlier.
Mailman 2.1.34 Debian 10 Postfix
Hi
I'm hoping someone can shine a light on character encoding issue I've encountered.
A plain-text email with non-ascii characters in the body gets posted to the list.
As per Mark Sapiro's guide I've captured the incoming message to file.
The message is received by Mailman with the non-ascii characters displaying correctly.
The header of that message has:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-AU Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In the list's mbox file and archive webpage, the message displays the non-ascii characters correctly.
In the archive's downloaded .txt (and also .gz) file, the non-ascii characters are missing and displayed as "?".
I've copied the message text in below, from both the correct one from the email and the erroneous .txt file. Hopefully they won't get scrambled up when I send this.
Any advice on getting the non-ascii characters written into the archive .txt file would be gratefully received.
Thanks, Mark
=== Message text as okay in mbox and as shown on the archive webpage ===
If one goes by the definition of veḷippaṭai as given in the Tamil Lexicon that the meaning of an ambiguous word should be disambiguated by a qualifying word, then aruvi āmpal does not conform to that definition since in the case of aruvi āmpal in Patiṟṟuppattu 63, aruvi is really made up of aru+vi, a compound. Moreover, the expression aṭai aṭuppu aṟiyā is already there to clarify that āmpal is a number and not a flower. Thus, aruvi simply provides information in addition to aṭai aṭuppu aṟiyā that āmpal is not a flower. The modern commentator Aruḷampalavaṉār also does not call it veḷippaṭai.
===
=== Message text with missing characters in te archive's txt and gz downloads ==
If one goes by the definition of ve?ippa?ai as given in the Tamil Lexicon that the meaning of an ambiguous word should be disambiguated by a qualifying word, then aruvi ?mpal does not conform to that definition since in the case of aruvi ?mpal in Pati??uppattu 63, aruvi is really made up of aru+vi, a compound. Moreover, the expression a?ai a?uppu a?iy? is already there to clarify that ?mpal is a number and not a flower. Thus, aruvi simply provides information in addition to a?ai a?uppu a?iy? that ?mpal is not a flower. The modern commentator Aru?ampalava??r also does not call it ve?ippa?ai.
===