Re: [Mutt] #2917: format/flowed messages are not properly filled
#2917: format/flowed messages are not properly filled
Comment (by John Hawkinson):
{{{
Mutt <fleas@xxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu, 21 Jun 2007
at 17:20:09 -0000 in <046.1d123600f7cd5cc9bbaf6c0979dd2c00@xxxxxxxx>:
> Didn't I write that? The problem with this bug is not mutt
> incorrectly rewraps lines but that it could be more clever to break
> overly long lines.
No, this is wrong!
The problem is that a fixed portion of a format=flowed message gets
wrapped when $wrap=0. And it looks bad. Mutt should not have wrapped it,
it should have kept it fixed.
It is possible that there are example cases of messages that should
be wrapped when $wrap=0 that are not being wrapped, but this is not
one of them and I'd want to see a case before speculating on a fix.
> Just that one has more than 80 characters doesn't mean he's willing
> to use it for text.
I wrote ">=80" and I meant >=. That is, if you have =80, mutt
should behave reasonably. It is not behaving reasonably for
a format=flowed message with a fixed portion that is formatted to
less than 80 columns.
> The problem is about breaking, not flowing.
But it's about breaking when it should not, it is not about
breaking in the wrong place, etc.
Mutt <fleas@xxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu, 21 Jun 2007
at 17:21:53 -0000 in <046.d4e21f1656a0ab6249453d6b36e2de9c@xxxxxxxx>:
> > How should mutt be more clever? I read this bug as requesting that
> > mutt pretend that long lines should be wrapped as if they ended in
> > a space (i.e. to have the paragraph "filled in").
No, that's definitely not good default behavior.
If someone sends me a fixed-formatted message that fits in 80 columns,
and I have not set $wrap, I do not want mutt to wrap it. I want it
to show it to me as the originator intended.
--jhawk
}}}
--
Ticket URL: <http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/2917#comment:>