Re: stuff_all_quoted
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 06:28:21PM -0700, Gary Johnson wrote:
> On 2006-08-16, William Yardley <mutt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Setting text_flowed causes $indent_string to be ignored. Because
> > > $indent_string is ignored, replying to NON format=flowed messages
> > > causes them to be quoted like so: >text. But because of this patch,
> > > replying to the rare emails that ARE format=flowed does work properly.
> > In any event, the behavior you're describing isn't broken - just
> > inconsistent -- and should be easy to fix (if Gary's not on the list, I
> > can ping him and see if he's willing to take a look at it).
> I haven't given this a lot of thought, nor have I read the RFC in a
> while, but I'm not sure what it means to "fix" this. As I recall,
> RFC 2646 (now RFC 3676) makes a clear distinction between quoted
> text and just text, and what may look like quoted text to you may be
> considered by the RFC to be just text that happens to have leading
> >'s.
But we're talking (in this example) about text which isn't from a
format=flowed message.... So the RFC is irrelevant in terms of what is
and isn't quoted text, right? (Since the message never claimed that it
was flowed to begin with).
> If you want to extend the scope of this patch, then we need to
> consider what we want to have happen and what is allowed to happen to
> the line ">>foo" in a received message that is then replied to in the
> following seven cases:
> 1. Received as format=fixed, replied to as format=fixed.
> 2. Received as format=fixed, replied to as format=flowed.
> 3. Received as format=flowed, replied to as format=fixed.
> 4. Received as format=flowed, replied to as format=flowed.
>
> where in cases 2 - 4, space-suffing may be either "on" or "off".
>
> When I wrote this patch, all I was interested in was making ">foo"
> received in a format=flowed message look like "> foo" while not
> violating any RFCs.
Right - and I think this is a good first step at least.
w