On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> wrote: > On 25Jul2015 22:43, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jul 25, 2015 4:51 PM, "Ben Finney" <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: >>> >>> Laura Creighton <l...@openend.se> writes: >>> > So it was my fault by sending him a reply with >>> to the far left. >>> >>> No, it was Google Mail's failt for messing with the content of the >>> message. > > > Specificly, by manking the text without leave(*). > >> What Internet standard is being violated by reflowing text content in >> the message body? > > > RFC3676: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?doc=3676 > See also: http://joeclark.org/ffaq.html
Thanks for the link. However, this only describes how reflowing is permitted on Format=Flowed messages. Both the message in question and the message it replied to omitted the Format parameter, which per the linked RFC makes them Format=Fixed by default. I can't find any standard discussing how Format=Fixed messages may or may not be reflowed when quoted. The > character that is commonly used as a prefix by virtually all (?) MUAs is also a form of mangling. As far as I know, it is not an Internet standard, just common convention (RFC 3676 specifies it, but again only for Format=Flowed plain text). Is there some standard I'm not aware of that permits quoting but forbids reflowing? Note that RFC 5322 recommends a line length limit of 78 characters and requires a limit of 998 characters, so in a sufficiently long exchange, reflowing would eventually become necessary. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
