Re: [PATCH] Improve f=f interoperability (was: [PATCH] fix
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.