Re: definition of signature separator
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 01:16:17PM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 20 at 06:17 AM, quoth George Davidovich:
> > > Mutt separates correctly the text and my signature (from the file
> > > ~/.elm/signature) in the body by inserting the '-- \n' line;
> >
> > Mutt does does indeed do that, but it's syntax hilighting won't work
> > for format-flowed messages,
>
> This message I'm sending right now is a format-flowed message, and as
> far as I can tell, the syntax highlighting works perfectly. What makes
> you say that it doesn't?
Quoted-printable, rather. I'm regularly annoyed by format-flowed. Not
yours specifically. but often enough that I'll whine when given the
opportunity.
> > or a line beginning with a 'From' that has had a '>' prepended after
> > the fact. ;-)
>
> I haven't used Mutt on a raw mbox in a long time (I use it on either
> IMAP or Maildir mailboxes) so I haven't had to deal with that kind of
> silliness and I can't see what you're talking about. But what what's
> that got to do with signatures?
I'm not sure what's silly about mboxes, or the insertion of '>'
characters by procmail and friends, but that aside, a signature that
reads
--
From the Dao comes one, from one comes two, from two comes three
and from three comes the ten thousand things.
can end up
--
>From the Dao comes one, from one comes two, from two comes ...
The only way that will appear correctly in mutt is if the reader has
achieved such a level of harmoniousness with the One True Nature of
Email that such things don't matter, or that the coloring for the first
level of quoted text is identical to that of signatures. Hence my
implied comment that signatures be constructed in a fairly standard
manner to help avoid the ten thousand possible issues for the person
receiving the message.
--
George