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
