On 06Sep2015 22:29, mwnx <m...@gmx.com> wrote:
[... hand crafted signature markers ...]
You're right, I had not noticed. Disturbing.
On this issue, I have commented out my "color" and "mono" directives for
"bold" and "underline", which at least gets me bold and underline ANSI
sequences transcribed as the terminal's bold and underline. [...]
Still, I can see that allowing ANSI through conflicts with mutt's coloured
markup of boundaries (signatures, attachment markers etc).
What is a sensible approach here?
Well, I was going to start hacking on mutt itself, but I figured an
extremely simple solution is to filter out the "\033[" sequences that mutt
uses to identify the start of an ANSI sequence before creating our own. This
filtering can be done in the highlighting script itself, by adding a new
line at the start:
s/\[/\^\[\[/g
[...]
Hmm, yes.
But for eye candy junkies like myself who want the ANSI colors if supplied?
I am wondering if mutt could be modified to use some of the ANSI line drawing
characters for the signature and attachment marker lines, like this:
|--- signature marker line ... ---|
where the "|---" and "---|" are actually ANSI line characters like those used
to show thread relationships in the index. i.e. Visually pleasing but not
something that mutt honours in message bodies.
Of course, maybe someone will point out that these are regular Unicode markers
and can come through anyway :-(
Alternatively, supposing mutt had a:
color markers foreground background
directive which actually forbade reusing those colours in the message body:
translate any use of the foreground colour specified there into the terminal's
bold or bright sequence, or if none, to "default".
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au>
Everything that can be invented has been invented.
- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
