Just to add to this discussion, as one who also would like to see word wrap implemented in the preview window:
I discovered that when an email comes in where the whole message is on one or a few long lines, I can hit the Reply button. This brings up a version that is word wrapped. I can read it, then cancel the reply. This is entirely illogical and I hope the developers will note that if they can wrap on a reply, they can certainly treat incoming the same way. Thanks, George Reeke On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 23:58 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 17:16 -0500, Saikat Guha wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 17:51 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > > > > This is a FAQ and AFAIK you can't do it. The wrap boundary appears to > > > > > be > > > > > hardwired at 70 characters, which apparently is inscribed in some > > > > > standard or other. > > > > > > > > If it's a FAQ, can someone please tell me which "standard" this is? > > > > > > >From RFC-2822 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html): > > > > > > "2.1.1. Line Length Limits > > > > > > There are two limits that this standard places on the number of > > > characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST be no more than > > > 998 characters, and SHOULD be no more than 78 characters, excluding > > > the CRLF." > > > > The RFC linked does NOT apply. From the RFC: > > > > 1.1. Scope > > ... > > Note: This standard is not intended to dictate the internal > > formats > > used by sites, the specific message system features that they are > > expected to support, or *any of the characteristics of user > > interface > > programs that create or read messages*. > > > > (emphasis added) > > > > There is nothing that requires a mailer to *display* messages > > hard-wrapped at n characters. The RFC linked only applies to > > messages on the wire so to speak. > > Fair enough. > > > Back to the OP's question: > > Why does evolution not have a re-wrap feature? > > I've no idea. I'm not a developer of Evo, but this question has been > asked before on the list and the answer has been along the lines I've > already mentioned (but evidently based on some other standards doc than > RFC-2822), thus my use of the terms "AFAIK" and "apparently". > > poc > > _______________________________________________ > Evolution-list mailing list > Evolution-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list _______________________________________________ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
