begin quoting Tracy R Reed as of Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 07:18:19PM -0800: > On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 11:20:38AM -0800, Stewart Stremler spake thusly: > > No, it could also be wrapped in transit, or truncated, even though this > > is not so often the case anymore. Or the receiver can wrap the text > > for the "user's convenience". > > Wrapped in transit? Isn't that a huge no-no? It would break gpg sigs too.
Anything at or over 80 characters was "fair game" for modification, at least, back when I was first playing in the email. Of course, this was in minicomputer land, in the time of bang-paths... So it might be inconvenient, but I wouldn't consider it a huge no-no. There's no guarantee, AFAIAC, that the body of a message with long lines won't be modified by the transporting software. Wrapping would be preferable to truncation. . . -Stewart "Then again, I was young and easily confused at the time" Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
