Re: [PATCH] Improve f=f interoperability (was: [PATCH] fix
Hi Rocco,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> * Johannes Stezenbach [07-10-19 14:39:48 +0200] wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007, Rocco Rutte wrote:
>
>>> original: flowed? | reply: flowed? | trim spaces
>>> 1 N N N
>>> 2 N Y Y
>>> 3 Y N Y
>>> 4 Y Y N
>
>>> 1: fixed reply to fixed mail: no problem
>>> 2: flowed reply to fixed mail: your example, problem
>>> 3: fixed reply to flowed mail: potential problem later on, esp. with
>>> other MUAs
>>> 4: flowed reply to flowed mail: no problem
>
>> For 1, 2, and 4 I fully agree. For 3 I think it isn't required
>> (because plain old MUAs also wouldn't do it), but it could
>> potentially improve interoperability because it avoids problems
>> caused later by other MUAs which don't implement 2.
>
> Attached is a patch which is a first take at implementing the above matrix.
> I only tested each case once but it seems to work.
>
> Now that I look at the changes, the behavior differs quite a lot compare to
> the current one. Maybe we should only use these changes depending on
> $flowed_compat (or something like that) defaulting to 'no' (to keep the
> current behavior as default)?
Have you made up your mind regarding this patch? It would
be nice if something like this would be comitted before
the next mutt release.
Thanks,
Johannes