Re: format=flowed breakage
On 2007-03-20 11:00:51 +0000, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> From: Rocco Rutte <pdmef@xxxxxxx>
> To: Mutt developers <mutt-dev@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:00:51 +0000
> Subject: Re: format=flowed breakage
> Reply-To: mutt-dev@xxxxxxxx
> X-Spam-Level:
> Organization: Berlin University of Technology
> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5
>
> Hi,
> * Thomas Roessler [07-03-20 10:46:04 +0100] wrote:
> >On 2007-03-20 10:27:04 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >>As an aside, the code used to implement this (in the instance around
> >>line 816 of rfc2047.c) looks like an incredibly convoluted and
> >>inefficient way of saying something like this:
> >> if (islwsp (*s))
> >> {
> >> *d = ' ';
> >> d++;
> >> dlen--;
> >> }
> >> while (islwsp (*s) && *s)
> >> s++;
> >Yikes. This looks as follows in the message on the wire.
> >SP SP SP } CR LF
> >SP SP SP CR LF
> >SP SP SP while ...
> >The new format=flowed handler pulls these lines together and
> >therefore messes up the formatting of the code.
> Can you please forward such a mail to me privately please?
> It shouldn't pull all 3 lines together but only lines 2 and 3 since line 2
> has a SP before CRLF.
What it is pulling together were lines 2 and 3, and that's precisely
what hit me unexpectedly.
The message in question went through the mutt-dev list, in the
thread about strict_mime.
Message-Id: <20070320092704.GF30802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:27:04 +0100
> Reverting and going back to the old one will fix the display
> problem in mutt for sure, but not in other mailers since they may
> interpret f=f correctly and hence may flow these lines and mess
> up the display.
I disagree that the old mutt behavior is incorrect (to the best of
my knowledge, there is nothing that says a message MUST be
reflowed), but agree that other mailers' behavior might indeed point
at an error at the time of composing the message.
> format=flowed is often refered to as "format=flawed" just because
> of exactly these issues... :)
Good point. ;)
--
Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>