Re: Wrapping lines, was Re: BTRFS and debian
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:10:01PM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Sat 14 Jul 2018 at 19:50:03 (+1000), Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 05:59:58PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> > > On 07/13/18 16:36, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 07:53:01PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> > > > > While a brutal analogy, it makes a point that can be applied to all
> > > > > computers -- devise strategies, invest in resources, and implement
> > > > > procedures that facilitate system roll-out, migration, and disaster
> > > > > recovery. This is a goal I have pursued over the years.
> > > >
> > > > zfs send (and of course filesystem snaphotting) ftw!
> > > > (I'm just learning about zfs btw, intending a home rollout in the
> > > > coming weeks.)
> > >
> > > ZFS is killer technology. zfs-fuse is sawed off. ZOL rocks, but the license keeps it out of Debian. We'll see if
> > > and when btrfs catches up.
> >
> > (Do you know why your mail client (or perhaps server) wraps at 115
> > chars? 72 or 69 or even 80 would be much better...)
>
> Your own mail client is doing this. You need to find out how to set
> the wrapping value. In mutt, you might add the line
>
> set reflow_wrap=80
Sweet!
Very informative. Daŋkə schön :)
> to your configuration file. (Seems unlikely though, as your client
> appears not to report itself, as mutt would do.)
>
> What's actually contained in David's email is:
>
> "ZFS is killer technology. zfs-fuse is sawed off. ZOL rocks, but the "
> "license keeps it out of Debian. We'll see if and when btrfs catches up."
>
> (I put the quotation marks round each line.) Note the space at the end
> of the first line, which indicates that the next line is a continuation
> of this one.
>
> Why is this happening? Because David's email header contains:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> It's the format=flowed that's making *your* email client reflow
> the text as required, but unfortunately to ~115 character lines
> rather than what you would prefer.
>
> Cheers,
> David.
>
Reply to: