On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 05:02:14PM -0500, Ed Blackman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:10:02AM -0800, Will Yardley wrote: > > > I honestly think that without better editor integration, and / > > or some way of validating that the content is actually formatted > > properly (or post-editing formatting within Mutt), that it's not > > a good idea for Mutt to support flowed text. Even when people are > > using the right options in vim and doing everything else right, it > > seems very fragile and prone to generating invalid flowed emails.
I tried to use flowed text with mutt + vim but there was always something that I couldn't get right. The fact that one needs to do some macro-editing of the text of the message (adding spaces, etc) seemed a bit off to me. Plus, sometimes I reply to e-mails that contain code snippets, and in those cases automatic wrapping tends to create some havoc. In the end, I settled with hard line breaks plus this line in my mail vim config file: set formatprg=par\ 72q par seems to be smarter than regular vim reflowing. I always got some "orphaned" line that I needed to join with the next one manually, but this works like a charm. Cheers, -- José María (Chema) Mateos || https://rinzewind.org/