Hello!
I'm looking for a color scheme that's better than Solarized. ​While i
do like Solarized (especially the 256-color Solarized), there are a few
problems that i have with it, such as the way that the palette fails to
map to the traditional 16-color palette and the somewhat strange
imbalances in some of the colors. So what i'm looking for is a color
scheme like this:
- About the same level of contrast as Solarized
- Easily invertible, like what Solarized does
- Maps to the traditional 16-color palette (i.e. has bright and darks of
the primaries, secondaries, black, and white)
- Colors are balanced and not biased towards any particular color (e.g.
not warm- or cool-leaning)
- Doesn't make assumptions about how it will be used (e.g. doesn't go
"red should be more intense because it's often used for warnings" or
some bullshit like that)
Does anyone know of something that fits the bill?
--
/blu.mɛin.dʰak/ | shortens to "Hawk" | he/him/his/himself/Mr.
bluemanedhawk.github.io
I think my Usenet provider stores their users' accounts' passwords in
plain text. If i'm acting suspiciously, chances are that that backfired
on them.

On 2022-10-02, Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)

And this is a plain text response, pointing out I couldn't read a word
of your message. But hey.

In comp.misc, Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-10-02, Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
> And this is a plain text response, pointing out I couldn't read a word
> of your message. But hey.

That's okay. I read his message and I have no idea what he's asking for.
He doesn't mention a program or operating system, and asks for opinions
on color scheme named after a black and white photography process, so
he's likely just going to be sad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarization_(photography)

Elijah
------
Photoshop has (or had) a Sabattier effect misnamed as "Solarize"

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:

> That's okay. I read his message and I have no idea what he's asking
> for. He doesn't mention a program or operating system, and asks for
> opinions on color scheme named after a black and white photography
> process, so he's likely just going to be sad.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarization_(photography)

I believe Solarized is operating system independent,
so technically these are the correct newsgroups?

Solarized is a color scheme for code editors and terminal
emulators created by Ethan Schoonover. The scheme is
available in a Light and a Dark mode. Packages that implement
the color scheme have been published for many major
applications, with some including the scheme pre-installed.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarized

Wikipedia's widely inconsistent metrics for software project
notability always baffles me. Solarized is important enough to
merit its own page, however things like rocket.chat aren't?
--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On 10/12/22 19:34, Retrograde wrote:
> On 2022-10-02, Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
>
> And this is a plain text response, pointing out I couldn't read a word
> of your message. But hey.
​I'm sorry. I don't know why Thunderbird is making my messages
not-plain-text, and i don't know how to turn it off.
--
/blu.mɛin.dʰak/ | shortens to "Hawk" | he/him/his/himself/Mr.
bluemanedhawk.github.io
I think my Usenet provider stores their users' accounts' passwords in
plain text. If i'm acting unusually, that probably backfired on them.

On 10/13/22 03:35, Otto J. Makela wrote:
> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarized
> [snip]
​Yes, this is the colorscheme i'm referring to, and i want something
better than it.
--
/blu.mɛin.dʰak/ | shortens to "Hawk" | he/him/his/himself/Mr.
bluemanedhawk.github.io
I think my Usenet provider stores their users' accounts' passwords in
plain text. If i'm acting unusually, that probably backfired on them.

Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> wrote:

> ​I'm sorry. I don't know why Thunderbird is making my messages
> not-plain-text, and i don't know how to turn it off.

There are two things: your signature block contains UTF-8 characters,
and you have PGP signing enabled.

Your message is however properly formed, and Gnus v5.13 is able to
decode it correctly. Apparently slrn/1.0.3 isn't.
--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 10:16:03 +0300
om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
> Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry. I don't know why Thunderbird is making my messages
> > not-plain-text, and i don't know how to turn it off.
>
> There are two things: your signature block contains UTF-8 characters,
> and you have PGP signing enabled.
>
> Your message is however properly formed, and Gnus v5.13 is able to
> decode it correctly. Apparently slrn/1.0.3 isn't.

My guess is that what's causing problems for some people is that Hawk's posts
are BASE64 encoded. I don't know why Thunderbird does that but there do exist
news.software.newsreaders and alt.comp.software.newsreaders for such
questions.

Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 10:16:03 +0300
> om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>> Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I'm sorry. I don't know why Thunderbird is making my messages
>> > not-plain-text, and i don't know how to turn it off.
>>
>> There are two things: your signature block contains UTF-8 characters,
>> and you have PGP signing enabled.
>>
>> Your message is however properly formed, and Gnus v5.13 is able to
>> decode it correctly. Apparently slrn/1.0.3 isn't.
>
> My guess is that what's causing problems for some people is that
> Hawk's posts are BASE64 encoded. I don't know why Thunderbird does
> that but there do exist news.software.newsreaders and
> alt.comp.software.newsreaders for such questions.

Indeed; I took it as implied that UTF-8 characters in the signature
block causes this need for encoding, and for some reason base64 gets
selected, instead of the (in this case) more frugal quoted-printable.

Followup-to: alt.comp.software.thunderbird,news.software.newsreaders,alt.comp.software.newsreaders
--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On 2022-10-14, Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> wrote:
> There are two things: your signature block contains UTF-8 characters,
> and you have PGP signing enabled.
>
> Your message is however properly formed, and Gnus v5.13 is able to
> decode it correctly. Apparently slrn/1.0.3 isn't.

Interesting observation, so I tested, and you are right. Emacs
26.3/gnus 5.13 handles it effortlessly, while slrn does not.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 15:18:36 +0300
om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My guess is that what's causing problems for some people is that
> > Hawk's posts are BASE64 encoded. I don't know why Thunderbird does
> > that but there do exist news.software.newsreaders and
> > alt.comp.software.newsreaders for such questions.
>
> Indeed; I took it as implied that UTF-8 characters in the signature
> block causes this need for encoding, and for some reason base64 gets
> selected, instead of the (in this case) more frugal quoted-printable.

But , as the recent thread (on comp.misc) "in praise of text files" showed ,
8 bit characters go through just fine with no need for encoding. It may be
that thunderbird decided to use BASE64 because Hawk's post contains some
octets with value > 127 but there was no need for the programme to do any
encoding.

If one does decide to use encoding , on usenet quoted-printable seems safer
than BASE64. I've never seen complaints about quoted-printable posts but
I've seen complaints by people whose newsreaders apparently don't decode
BASE64 posts. Also the news2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de newsserver often
drops BASE64 encoded posts. For example thbc1u$1kurt$16@dont-email.me (the
opening post of this thread) does not appear at all on that server although
posts from earlier dates do.

> Followup-to: alt.comp.software.thunderbird,news.software.newsreaders,alt.comp.software.newsreaders

By the way , the post I'm responding to does not appear on news.aioe.org
presumably because you have crossposted to too many newsgroups.

--
Visceral importance and interpretative subtlety are, sadly, inversely proportional.
That, of course, is the great frustration of history as an intellectual pursuit: the
further the event recedes and fades, the more refined our understanding, the less
anyone cares.
Peter Baldwin

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 15:18:36 +0300 om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > Followup-to: alt.comp.software.thunderbird,news.software.newsreaders,alt.comp.software.newsreaders
>
> By the way , the post I'm responding to does not appear on news.aioe.org
> presumably because you have crossposted to too many newsgroups.

It seems that some of the groups does not exist, e.g.
"news.software.newsreaders" and "alt.comp.software.newsreaders".

But the group "news.software.readers" exists
(<news:news.software.readers>, if your newsreader supports URIs).

[Xpost reduced]

Michael Bäuerle <michael.baeuerle@stz-e.de> wrote:

> But the group "news.software.readers" exists

Confirmed: I have lurked there since before Blinky died.
To get attention in that group put [your newseader]
including the square brackets in the Subject line;
otherwise you are likely to be ignored.

--
^Ï^. My pet rock Gordon just is.

~ Slava Ukraini ~

Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> writes:

> On 10/13/22 03:35, Otto J. Makela wrote:
>> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarized
>> [snip]
>
> ​Yes, this is the colorscheme i'm referring to, and i want something
> better than it.

I've been using the Modus themes for Emacs and I nicked the color
pallete for that and use that for my Xresources file. I'm not
particularly picky when it comes to how my desktop looks. I'd rather
have it readable than fancy.

You said you'd like to have a scheme with more constrast so maybe you
can look into that.

Cheers,

--
Pointless meanderings in a bleak and lonely world.

In article <Z2xjxj6GLU0cTiaJR@bongo-ra.co>,
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 10:16:03 +0300
>om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) wrote:
>> Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm sorry. I don't know why Thunderbird is making my messages
>> > not-plain-text, and i don't know how to turn it off.
>>
>> There are two things: your signature block contains UTF-8 characters,
>> and you have PGP signing enabled.
>>
>> Your message is however properly formed, and Gnus v5.13 is able to
>> decode it correctly. Apparently slrn/1.0.3 isn't.
>
>My guess is that what's causing problems for some people is that Hawk's posts
>are BASE64 encoded. I don't know why Thunderbird does that but there do exist
>news.software.newsreaders and alt.comp.software.newsreaders for such
>questions.

They are BASE64 encoded because they are MIME-packed. They are MIME-packed
for the reasons mentioned above, that the signature contains high bit chars
and PGP signing is enabled. When you turn PGP signing on, the signature is
not just appended to the file but sent as a MIME enclosure. Because there
are high bit chars, that MIME enclosure gets BASE64ed.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> They are BASE64 encoded because they are MIME-packed. They are MIME-packed
> for the reasons mentioned above, that the signature contains high bit chars
> and PGP signing is enabled. When you turn PGP signing on, the signature is
> not just appended to the file but sent as a MIME enclosure. Because there
> are high bit chars, that MIME enclosure gets BASE64ed.

MIME doesn’t enforce base64. quoted-printable is an option too, and a
more appropriate one for Usenet where half the clients don’t seem to
have been updated since 1995.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>> They are BASE64 encoded because they are MIME-packed. They are MIME-packed
>> for the reasons mentioned above, that the signature contains high bit chars
>> and PGP signing is enabled. When you turn PGP signing on, the signature is
>> not just appended to the file but sent as a MIME enclosure. Because there
>> are high bit chars, that MIME enclosure gets BASE64ed.
>
>MIME doesn't enforce base64. quoted-printable is an option too, and a
>more appropriate one for Usenet where half the clients don't seem to
>have been updated since 1995.

This is true, but sadly not all applications developers think this way.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 16 Oct 2022 13:18:25 -0000
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> In article <Z2xjxj6GLU0cTiaJR@bongo-ra.co>,
> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
> >My guess is that what's causing problems for some people is that Hawk's posts
> >are BASE64 encoded. I don't know why Thunderbird does that but there do exist
> >news.software.newsreaders and alt.comp.software.newsreaders for such
> >questions.
>
> They are BASE64 encoded because they are MIME-packed. They are MIME-packed
> for the reasons mentioned above, that the signature contains high bit chars
> and PGP signing is enabled. When you turn PGP signing on, the signature is
> not just appended to the file but sent as a MIME enclosure. Because there
> are high bit chars, that MIME enclosure gets BASE64ed.

Is there some RFC which says that it has to be encoded ? In other words , if
<thbc1u$1kurt$16@dont-email.me> had

[...]
--------------Tt8my9EQNXhQlE93lqBKz0mM
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------mmNZ03EhTrk2EIAXSj0QuBYT"

--------------mmNZ03EhTrk2EIAXSj0QuBYT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hello!

I'm looking for a color scheme that's better than Solarized. While i
[...]
/blu.mɛin.dʰak/ | shortens to "Hawk" | he/him/his/himself/Mr.
[...]
--------------mmNZ03EhTrk2EIAXSj0QuBYT
Content-Type: application/pgp-keys; name="OpenPGP_0x0D8C69D9C42BA5C8.asc"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_0x0D8C69D9C42BA5C8.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP public key
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
[...]

, would it violate any RFC ?

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 18:00:28 +0100
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> > They are BASE64 encoded because they are MIME-packed. They are MIME-packed
> > for the reasons mentioned above, that the signature contains high bit chars
> > and PGP signing is enabled. When you turn PGP signing on, the signature is
> > not just appended to the file but sent as a MIME enclosure. Because there
> > are high bit chars, that MIME enclosure gets BASE64ed.
>
> MIME doesn’t enforce base64. quoted-printable is an option too, and a
> more appropriate one for Usenet where half the clients don’t seem to
> have been updated since 1995.

If they can otherwise parse the MIME parts correctly , doing BASE64 decoding
is only a few lines of C code. In some languages it would be just calling a
function , possibly after importing a package.

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2022 13:18:25 -0000
> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> > In article <Z2xjxj6GLU0cTiaJR@bongo-ra.co>,
> > Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > My guess is that what's causing problems for some people is that Hawk's posts
> > > are BASE64 encoded. I don't know why Thunderbird does that but there do exist
> > > news.software.newsreaders and alt.comp.software.newsreaders for such
> > > questions.
> >
> > They are BASE64 encoded because they are MIME-packed. They are MIME-packed
> > for the reasons mentioned above, that the signature contains high bit chars
> > and PGP signing is enabled. When you turn PGP signing on, the signature is
> > not just appended to the file but sent as a MIME enclosure. Because there
> > are high bit chars, that MIME enclosure gets BASE64ed.
>
> Is there some RFC which says that it has to be encoded ? In other words , if
> <thbc1u$1kurt$16@dont-email.me> had
>
> [...]
> --------------Tt8my9EQNXhQlE93lqBKz0mM
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------mmNZ03EhTrk2EIAXSj0QuBYT"
>
> --------------mmNZ03EhTrk2EIAXSj0QuBYT
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Hello!
>
> I'm looking for a color scheme that's better than Solarized. While i
> [...]
> /blu.mɛin.dʰak/ | shortens to "Hawk" | he/him/his/himself/Mr.
> [...]
> --------------mmNZ03EhTrk2EIAXSj0QuBYT
> Content-Type: application/pgp-keys; name="OpenPGP_0x0D8C69D9C42BA5C8.asc"
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_0x0D8C69D9C42BA5C8.asc"
> Content-Description: OpenPGP public key
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> [...]
>
> , would it violate any RFC ?

RFC 3156 says:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3156#section-3>
|
| 3. Content-Transfer-Encoding restrictions
| | Multipart/signed and multipart/encrypted are to be treated by agents
| as opaque, meaning that the data is not to be altered in any way [2],
| [7]. However, many existing mail gateways will detect if the next
| hop does not support MIME or 8-bit data and perform conversion to
| either Quoted-Printable or Base64. This presents serious problems
| for multipart/signed, in particular, where the signature is
| invalidated when such an operation occurs. For this reason all data
| signed according to this protocol MUST be constrained to 7 bits (8-
| bit data MUST be encoded using either Quoted-Printable or Base64).

The example above would violate the "MUST be constrained to 7 bits".
But QP transfer encoding (instead of Base64) should be allowed.

[Subject adjusted]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 13:22:13 +0200 (CEST)
Michael Bäuerle <michael.baeuerle@stz-e.de> wrote:
> Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> > Is there some RFC which says that it has to be encoded ? In other words , if
> > <thbc1u$1kurt$16@dont-email.me> had
> >
> > [...]
> > --------------Tt8my9EQNXhQlE93lqBKz0mM
> > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------mmNZ03EhTrk2EIAXSj0QuBYT"
> >
> > --------------mmNZ03EhTrk2EIAXSj0QuBYT
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> > I'm looking for a color scheme that's better than Solarized. While i
> > [...]
> > /blu.mɛin.dʰak/ | shortens to "Hawk" | he/him/his/himself/Mr.
> > [...]
> > --------------mmNZ03EhTrk2EIAXSj0QuBYT
> > Content-Type: application/pgp-keys; name="OpenPGP_0x0D8C69D9C42BA5C8.asc"
> > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_0x0D8C69D9C42BA5C8.asc"
> > Content-Description: OpenPGP public key
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > [...]
> >
> > , would it violate any RFC ?
>
> RFC 3156 says:
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3156#section-3>
> |
> | 3. Content-Transfer-Encoding restrictions
> |
> | Multipart/signed and multipart/encrypted are to be treated by agents
> | as opaque, meaning that the data is not to be altered in any way [2],
> | [7]. However, many existing mail gateways will detect if the next
> | hop does not support MIME or 8-bit data and perform conversion to
> | either Quoted-Printable or Base64. This presents serious problems
> | for multipart/signed, in particular, where the signature is
> | invalidated when such an operation occurs. For this reason all data
> | signed according to this protocol MUST be constrained to 7 bits (8-
> | bit data MUST be encoded using either Quoted-Printable or Base64).
>
> The example above would violate the "MUST be constrained to 7 bits".
> But QP transfer encoding (instead of Base64) should be allowed.

I see. That's a bummer. The same RFC says
Implementor's note: It cannot be stressed enough that applications
using this standard follow MIME's suggestion that you "be
conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you
accept." In this particular case it means it would be wise for an
implementation to accept messages with any content-transfer-
encoding, but restrict generation to the 7-bit format required by
this memo. This will allow future compatibility in the event the
Internet SMTP framework becomes 8-bit friendly.

Given that the RFC is from 2001 , I wonder if the Internet SMTP framework
has become 8-bit friendly by now.

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> Michael Bäuerle wrote:
> > Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there some RFC which says that it has to be encoded ? In other words , if
> > > <thbc1u$1kurt$16@dont-email.me> had
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > --------------Tt8my9EQNXhQlE93lqBKz0mM
> > > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------mmNZ03EhTrk2EIAXSj0QuBYT"
> > >
> > > --------------mmNZ03EhTrk2EIAXSj0QuBYT
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> > >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > I'm looking for a color scheme that's better than Solarized. While i
> > > [...]
> > > /blu.mɛin.dʰak/ | shortens to "Hawk" | he/him/his/himself/Mr.
> > > [...]
> > > --------------mmNZ03EhTrk2EIAXSj0QuBYT
> > > Content-Type: application/pgp-keys; name="OpenPGP_0x0D8C69D9C42BA5C8.asc"
> > > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="OpenPGP_0x0D8C69D9C42BA5C8.asc"
> > > Content-Description: OpenPGP public key
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > , would it violate any RFC ?
> >
> > RFC 3156 says:
> > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3156#section-3>
> > |
> > | 3. Content-Transfer-Encoding restrictions
> > |
> > | Multipart/signed and multipart/encrypted are to be treated by agents
> > | as opaque, meaning that the data is not to be altered in any way [2],
> > | [7]. However, many existing mail gateways will detect if the next
> > | hop does not support MIME or 8-bit data and perform conversion to
> > | either Quoted-Printable or Base64. This presents serious problems
> > | for multipart/signed, in particular, where the signature is
> > | invalidated when such an operation occurs. For this reason all data
> > | signed according to this protocol MUST be constrained to 7 bits (8-
> > | bit data MUST be encoded using either Quoted-Printable or Base64).
> >
> > The example above would violate the "MUST be constrained to 7 bits".
> > But QP transfer encoding (instead of Base64) should be allowed.
>
> I see. That's a bummer. The same RFC says
> Implementor's note: It cannot be stressed enough that applications
> using this standard follow MIME's suggestion that you "be
> conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you
> accept." In this particular case it means it would be wise for an
> implementation to accept messages with any content-transfer-
> encoding, but restrict generation to the 7-bit format required by
> this memo. This will allow future compatibility in the event the
> Internet SMTP framework becomes 8-bit friendly.
>
> Given that the RFC is from 2001 , I wonder if the Internet SMTP framework
> has become 8-bit friendly by now.

There is the "8BITMIME" extension defined in RFC 6152:
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6152>
This should in theory allow to use SMTP as an 8-bit clean transport
protocol.

There ist the "SMTPUTF8" extension defined in RFC 6531:
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6531>
This is a complete new Unicode-based message format intended to be used
with "8BITMIME" transport.

But even big companies are not able (or more likely not willing) to
implement it correctly. Maybe it is undesired that mail works well,
because commercial actors want to push their proprietary products
(that are intentionally not based on open standards and provide no
interoperability to create a lock-in effect).

Blue-Maned_Hawk:

> I'm looking for a color scheme that's better than
> Solarized. While i do like Solarized (especially
> the 256-color Solarized), there are a few problems
> that i have with it, such as the way that the
> palette fails to map to the traditional 16-color
> palette and the somewhat strange imbalances in
> some of the colors.

I have never seen a 256-color version, nor am inter-
ested in it. The one I know is 16-color:

https://github.com/altercation/solarized

And I don't think it is as good as advertised:

1. Some colors are too similar (red and orange).

2. The light version has perceptually less contrast
than the dark one.

3. The brighnesses are overequalised, whereas some
variation is desirable.

4. The hues and saturations are chosed using the LAB
color model, which, although perceptive, has its
imperfections. The human is the ultimate judge.

> So what i'm looking for is a color scheme like
> this:
>
> -- About the same level of contrast as Solarized
>
> -- Easily invertible, like what Solarized does
>
> -- Maps to the traditional 16-color palette (i.e.
> has bright and darks of the primaries, secon-
> daries, black, and white)
>
> -- Colors are balanced and not biased towards any
> particular color (e.g. not warm- or cool-lean-
> ing)
>
> -- Doesn't make assumptions about how it will be
> used (e.g. doesn't go "red should be more in-
> tense because it's often used for warnings" or
> some bullshit like that)
>
> Does anyone know of something that fits the bill?

No, and I checked lots of ANSI-compatible palettes.
Very manage so much as barely to work in Far, Nor-
ton, and Midnight Commander. I am currenly working
on a improved version of the standard eye-piercing
ANSI palatte with most of your goals except in-
versibility.

P.S.: I can read your articles in Sylpheed, but dis-
approve of their format.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments