Forward spam as Unicode, or "as is"?

[cyshuster]

Occasionally I get spam in double-byte character sets. Outlook Express lets me choose two options when I forward as attachments to SpamCop: "Send as Unicode", with all character set information retained, or "Send As Is", using only the default character set.

Does SpamCop have a preference?

--Cy--

[Farelf]

Nobody's picked this up Cy and I don't know (and can't test from where I am at the moment). I am thinking either will work, certainly "normal text/plain format will work fine" (7-bit) as it says in the FAQ . Why don't you just try it each way, see what the results/differences are and return here with observations?

[Wazoo]

Like Farelf, not a clue as to the parser "likes" .. nothing to test with ... so let's play with the hyptheticals a bit ...

"Thou shalt not modify the spam ...." rule ... hmmm, seems to suggest (based on the description offered) that one would go with the "unaltered" version ....

"use the default character set" would/could also suggest that cetain data would end up non-readable at the other end, as those "wierd" characters would end up as trash at the other end, thus (possibly) making some of the critical data useless to the parser .. http://??xd??er?.?o? sure wouldn't parse worth a hoot ..... (probably a very bad example, just trying to make the point obvious)

[Jeff G.]

I'd go with "Send As Is" as well.