Re: definition of signature separator

[Kyle Wheeler <kyle-mutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday, January 20 at 12:51 PM, quoth George Davidovich:
>> 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.

Interesting! Quite true... I wonder why it does that. Seems like a 
bug, to me.

> I'm regularly annoyed by format-flowed.  Not yours specifically. but 
> often enough that I'll whine when given the opportunity.

Out of sheer curiosity, why? Is it format-flowed that bothers you, or 
misused format-flowed, or...? From an end-user perspective, 
format-flowed email seems to have nothing but benefits.

>>> 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,

For one thing, the fact that it's never become a standardized format, 
and is instead a mix-and-match set of conventions that every mail 
program has their own ideas about (often with disastrous results). I 
find that hilarious. And the fact that people continue to refer to 
"mbox" as a mailbox format, and continue to use it as if it were a 
portable useful format... As far as I can tell, it's good for one 
thing: mail that will only ever be accessed by a single piece of 
software.

Not all types of mbox require the > character to be inserted before 
"From". The problem is that mutt uses the "mboxcl" flavor of mbox, 
which is an *awful* format because it permanently corrupts messages by 
inserting those > characters in a way where you cannot determine what 
the original message looked like. If mutt instead used the "mboxcl2" 
flavor, that would not be the case (I have no idea why mutt uses the 
mboxcl format).

But I see what you mean about it affecting signature display.

If you're interested in some quick reading about the hilarity of "the 
mbox format" (such as it is), check this out: 
http://homepages.tesco.net./~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/mail-mbox-formats.html

In any case: DON'T USE MBOX! It's a lousy format for general-purpose 
email. The right mbox flavor can be good for read-only archives, but 
that's about it.

:)

~Kyle
- -- 
The real problem is not whether machines think, but whether men do.
                                                       -- B. F. Skinner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!

iEYEARECAAYFAkl2R10ACgkQBkIOoMqOI14PaACfatyE3NK9DCGfD9yRzCxTKaLM
jZsAnjGe0yZPVr5SwnmbUwx7g/f8JNl9
=xwfA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----