From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout-y-111.mailbox.org (mout-y-111.mailbox.org [91.198.250.236]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 904A939450C4 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:22:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 904A939450C4 Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:105:465:1:1:0]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mout-y-111.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BhSNr2QnZzQlPy; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 17:22:36 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at heinlein-support.de Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org ([80.241.60.240]) by spamfilter06.heinlein-hosting.de (spamfilter06.heinlein-hosting.de [80.241.56.125]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id 7pvgRmtax8M5; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 17:22:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 17:24:34 +0200 From: Max Gautier To: Libc-alpha Cc: Max Gautier Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] iconv: module for MODIFIED-UTF-7 Message-ID: <20200902152434.GA55993@ol-mgautier.localdomain> Mail-Followup-To: Max Gautier , Libc-alpha References: <20200819230702.229822-1-mg@max.gautier.name> <87y2m9agmm.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87y2m9agmm.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> X-MBO-SPAM-Probability: X-Rspamd-Score: -9.40 / 15.00 / 15.00 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 463C11279 X-Rspamd-UID: b402a1 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, KAM_NUMSUBJECT, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 15:22:41 -0000 * Florian Weimer: > Let's try to get it added to the IANA registry? It's odd that a > charset defined in an RFC is not already contained in it. While we do that, is there someone who would have time to review the code itself, so we'll be able to proceed once the charset name get registered ?