On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Erik Christiansen <dva...@internode.on.net> wrote: > On 03.06.16 17:22, Xu Wang wrote: >> Interesting. To reproduce what i see, you can do following steps: >> >> 1. move the file (temporarily but be sure to back up) ~/sent >> 2. in mutt, do >> set record="~/sent" >> 3. send an email with "From " in the body >> 4. Open in vim or in mutt+vim ~/sent file. >> >> I think you will then see that no escape is there. > > Having used mutt to send one of the test emails, it was enough to just > look in ~/mail/sent. Like you, I haven't seen any mention in the mutt > manual, of its interpretation of mbox format. But the mbox manpage does > say: > > | Besides MBOXO and MBOXRD there is also MBOXCL which is MBOXO with > | a "Content-Length:"-field with the number of bytes in the message > | body; some MUAs (like mutt(1)) do automatically transform MBOXO > | mailboxes into MBOXCL ones when ever they write them back as MBOXCL > | can be read by any MBOXO-MUA without any problems. > > How the last statement can be logically supported eludes me, as a regex > search works with MBOXO, but fails with MBOXCL, disproving it instantly. > > It does, though, neutralise any rational aversion based on quoting, to > use of mbox format together with mutt, if the MDA also uses MBOXCL. > (I will admit to not having found anything in man procmailrc to allow > one to make that tweak.) > > Erik
Thank you for taking time to test, Eric! I appreciate your evaluation of the situation. Kind regards, Xu > > -- > The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them. > - Andy Tanenbaum
