-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday, February 10 at 05:45 PM, quoth Rejo Zenger:
> What does remain is the original problem: why is it that in replies
> the URI's are mangled?
Well, it depends on the original email, obviously. But keep in mind
that mutt is juggling the rather herculean task of providing everybody
with the character set it expects, to the best that mutt understands
what they're expecting. For example, it has to convert everything into
a character set that the terminal can understand. When replying, it
has to convert into a character set that your editor will understand.
Something else that can affect things is the fact that mutt is
converting the email into *text* for replying to it. This doesn't
sound like a big deal until you consider that you're converting from
things like html.
As an example, some folks use html rendering programs (like
development versions elinks) that, when rendering HTML, can include
ANSI color codes. This can be quite convenient when viewing emails
inline, but when using that same program to provide text to your
editor, those color codes might be misinterpreted. As far as I know,
mutt tries to do the right thing there, but my point is that
constructing messages for replying can be a more complicated thing
than we realize. Figuring out exactly how the process breaks down when
something goes awry requires knowing exactly what you're asking mutt
to do.
I'm giving you generalities here, because I don't know the specifics
of your setup or the emails you're replying to. But does that help?
~Kyle
- --
No man goes so high as he who knows not where he is going.
-- Cromwell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!
iEYEARECAAYFAkmRslAACgkQBkIOoMqOI16lbACcCXuY4w1v9HWLELhJf05T1cOx
9YwAn3ZDbYtUawC8xrT8Jw6EQaEcT/Fr
=y+bc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
