<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: What's needed for mutt 1.6?



Hi,

* Christian Ebert [07-03-02 08:28:03 +0100] wrote:
* Rocco Rutte on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 09:39:03 +0000:

<http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~pdmef/mutt/patches/patch-1.5.13-cvs.muttng.ff.3.diff>

I played around with this. 2 questions/remarks:

It seems to me that it breaks recognition of correct sig dashes
in the pager (or is it something in my setup?).

Hmm. I never had problems with them. Can you mail me an exampe (privately)?

While I guess it is more correct rfc-wise I personally prefer the
old-fashioned way of reading the mail wrapped -- and only eg. a
long line like the url above not wrapped (otoh I use a rather
wide terminal so that eg. long urls broken by terminal width).

The patch itself is more rfc-compliant. The rfc says the receivers can format it to whatever they want, which includes leaving it as is. :)

The patch doesn't flow things up to the terminal with but to with-$wrapmargin. Unfortunately, $wrapmargin defaults to 0.

Brendan and me already discussed some the idea of adding $wrap on IRC which specifies the width of text, and that it could default to columns-$wrapmargin (in the implementation, not config). Since $wrapmargin specifies the character cells on the rigth side to be left, there's no way to provide a textwidth default currently, with $wrap it would be easy.

A $wrap option could default to 80 so that you (in most cases) won't even notice that the text gets flowed.

For urls: I didn't check what happens to overly long lines, but a sample mail and playing with $wrapmargin one can easily find out.

  bye, Rocco
--
:wq!