On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 07:48:28PM +0100, Óscar Pereira wrote: > > When hitting reply, in the editor the lines of the quoted text are shown > like this: ">foo", but after sending the mail, the content is shown like > "> foo". Furthermore, if when composing the reply, I change from ">foo" > (which is done automatically) to "> foo", the end result still shows > like "> foo". This happens with vim and nano (and, I presume, all other > editors..). > > I thought this might be related with the inner workings of flowed text > (which I'm using), but checking the relevant RFC [1], I still see no > reason to quote the text (while composing) as ">foo" (instead of > "> foo"). Can anyone shed some light?
I used to have the behavior you describe, and used Gary Johnson's "stuff_all_quoted" patch for a long time. Now, I think FreeBSD's mutt port has a patch that does something equivalent. Personally, I think the current behavior is wrong, both in terms of how mutt renders flowed text in the viewer (which doesn't have to be the same way it is in the raw message, and IMHO, should follow the normal quoting behavior), and in terms of how the text is quoted when replying without $text_flowed set. Even with vim, it's difficult to get an editor for mutt that can reliably generate correct flowed text, and mutt itself doesn't have any way to ensure that the text the user generates is flowed correctly; either way, as best as I can tell, most users of mutt don't use the flowed text feature, however, we do all receive (and reply to) messages from senders whose MUAs use flowed text, and replying to it like >>foo >foo vs > > foo > foo is inconsistent, and looks sloppy when one is not generating flowed text. You can take a look at this thread for some discussion about it: You could see if this patch helps: http://www.mutt.org.ua/download/mutt-1.5.23/patch-1.5.23.vvv.quote.gz I think it will give something closer to the behavior you want. I don't think the stuff_all_quoted patch has been kept up to date. w
