Hi!
On Thu, 2025-02-27 at 13:29:59 +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
This thread did, however, cause me to work out how to configure my
mailer to send format=flowed, since it does look as though that's
somewhat nicer for receivers who aren't using the same kind of
dinosaur setup as I am, and support seems to have improved since the
last time I looked at this eons ago. I needed this in
~/.config/nvim/init.vim (should also work in ~/.vimrc):
au FileType mail setlocal formatoptions+=w
And this in ~/.muttrc:
set text_flowed
That seems to work pretty well. I reflowed the parts of your
message that I quoted here to match.
Thanks! I tried this when you posted it and it worked fine when sending
original mails, but I then noticed when editing a reply, it mangled
the quoting by removing all spaces between the quoting markers (">"),
which briefly checking now seems to be working as specified in the RFC,
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. :/
So I've since disabled text_flowed=yes again. If someone knows of a way
to avoid this mangling that mutt does for the file to be edited, I might
reconsider enabling it, but otherwise this looks like a blocker to me.
I'm also concerned with the disparity between the presented text and
the sent text, which I guess could also affect inlined patches or similar
text that should not be mangled? (But at this point I've not tried
experimenting further with that, as it seems not worth the effort, given
the above.)
My muttrc config was:
set text_flowed=yes
set reflow_text=yes
set reflow_wrap=70
set reflow_space_quotes=yes
My vimrc config was:
autocmd FileType mail setlocal spell textwidth=70 formatoptions+=w
Thanks,
Guillem
