BTS not unmangling quoting markers with format=flowed (was: Re: Change the expectation that emails should wrap at 80 characters)
Hi!
On Sun, 2025-03-16 at 18:55:52 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sun, 2025-03-16 at 18:18:58 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > […]
> > such as:
> >
> > # On time+3, Carol wrote:
> > # >On time+2, Bob wrote:
> > # >>On time+1, Alice wrote:
> > # >>>Some long reply line that supposedly gets wrapper at 7x chars or
> > # >>>so, continued.
> > # >>Some long reply line that supposedly gets wrapper at 7x chars or so,
> > # >>continued.
> > # >Some long reply line that supposedly gets wrapper at 7x chars or so,
> > # >continued.
> > # Some long reply line that supposedly gets wrapper at 7x chars or so,
> > # continued.
>
> > Which I find to be very annoying and hard to read from my editor (vim).
> > And checking how this is shown now in mutt (before sending), with
> > text_flowed disabled, but reflow_text enabled, indicates to me the
> > mangling is worse than I thought, but perhaps it's just reflow_text being
> > applied to a text that is not yet sent and will not be format=flowed,
> > thus should not really be applied to, otherwise you might need to check
> > the raw text of the mail. :/
>
> Ah, sorry, it looks like I started drafting that reply with
> text_flowed enabled, and that was preserved after postponing and
> continuing with a new mutt session with the option disabled. (Hopefully
> the example is seen correctly now.)
I noticed today while reading the BTS what I suspected to be the same
mangling mentioned above (or well lack of unmangling), happening there.
I looked for an example with multiple quoting levels, and quickly found
this one:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1099935#35
I guess this is just because the BTS does not support format=flowed.
(There's also <https://bugs.debian.org/601242>.)
Thanks,
Guillem
Reply to: