DNF Doesn't Appear to Have --skip-broken

[Tim]

Allegedly, on or about 03 July 2014, Stephen Morris sent:
> I have view-->Character Encoding set to Unicode and I see those 
> characters in Fred's Mail but not in Rahul's. I have opened Rahul's
> mail in a new tab and switched the encoding to Western and i shows the
> characters as you said, what I have also noticed is that in Fred's
> reply there are more of those characters than what there is in Rahul's
> mail.

As a general rule, at least for reading mail, you do not set defaults to
something like that.  The default for mail, is us-ascii (the default
being used when there is no header is present to say what the message
content is written in, then the simplest us-ascii is the norm).
Anything else should (probably "must") have headers declaring what it
is, and the mail client will pay attention to them.

A need to pick something else to display mail arises from dealing with
broken clients that send something else without saying what it is.  And,
in ancient computing times, various systems which used all sorts of
different encoding schemes, and never bothered to declare what they use.
In this day and age, there should be no client that composes a message
without describing the character encoding that it used.  Such a client
would have been written by a really crap author.

For composing mail, your editor's default (that's a different setting),
should be the same as your system's, or your mail client should be able
to figure it out for themselves.  Some can't, hence the need to be able
to set a default, here.

When composing mail that includes portions of someone else's text (a
reply with quotes), the mail client should be transcoding any different
schemes, so that the whole message uses the same scheme.


-- 
[tim at localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64

All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.

George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.