That blog post makes no sense until you substitute email for email address — non-ASCII UTF-8 characters in the body of an email is no problem provided the right encoding is used.
Perhaps other readers will find that useful to figure out the intended message.
Language nitpick: that should be the other way around, for meaning roughly instead of in this expression. I guess this might be going the way of comprised of and the like (once considered a clear error, but now so widespread that it's considered pedantic to reject it).
You should be downvoted, you're right and the order they used is wrong and requires your brain to rearrange it. If op wanted to use that ordering they should have used "with" in place of "for".
