On 10-12-2015 15:37:29 -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > I have been trying to read up on format=flowed and the patches you > referenced, but frankly both the above patch and the revised gentoo > version at: > http://sourceforge.net/p/gentoomuttpatches/code/ci/default/tree/07-quote.patch > make no sense to me. > > Below, the first column indicates the "original" content of an email. > The second column is the output when replying using the FreeBSD patch, > and the third column is output when replying using the Gentoo patch. > (with unset text_flowed; set quote_quoted) > > Original FreeBSD Patch Gentoo Patch > ======== ============= ============ > > > > > foo > > >> foo > > > > foo > > >>>foo >>>>foo >>>>>>foo
This is a bug (the same happens below, snipped for brevity). > Even if this made any sense, both patches override reflow_text when > replying, and the FreeBSD patch uses a fixed buffer size, making them > unsuitable for just applying. I see how this is undesired. Am I correct if I think it needs some function that does the quotation-prefix mangling which then can be called from both the text_plain_handler and rfc3676_handler? I think what the Gentoo patch tries to achieve is to keep consistent quotation (> > > vs > >>, but also | | vs | > or > |), plus the preference of some people to not quote empty lines at all. > I'm baffled that these patches are helping you, or why anyone would want > to turn them on. I can only guess that I have missed something. For me, as user, I disabled text_flowed with a comment that it modifies the text too much to my liking, but that was in 2007, so perhaps this changed (I never tested it since -- don't need it I suppose). It explains why it doesn't harm me. I'm happy to help get the intention of this patch implemented! Fabian -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
