Re: format=flowed breakage
Hi,
* Thomas Roessler [07-03-20 12:05:34 +0100] wrote:
On 2007-03-20 11:00:51 +0000, Rocco Rutte wrote:
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
I've seen it.
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.
I didn't say the old one is incorrect, leaving the text as-is is fine.
Anyway, can I take the last part as a vote for leaving the handler in?
:)
bye, Rocco
--
:wq!