From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/32357 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Weird subject wrapping Date: 08 Sep 2000 10:45:37 -0400 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <87u2brbyo4.fsf@senstation.vvf.fi> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035168640 19268 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 02:50:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 02:50:40 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from fisher.math.uh.edu (fisher.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.35]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28386D051E for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:50:54 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by fisher.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAC07127; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:46:38 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 08 Sep 2000 09:45:48 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from mailhost.sclp.com (postfix@66-209.196.61.interliant.com [209.196.61.66] (may be forged)) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06851 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:45:37 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from multivac.student.cwru.edu (multivac.STUDENT.CWRU.Edu [129.22.239.69]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 427CED051E for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (qmail 24822 invoked by uid 500); 8 Sep 2000 14:45:59 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE's message of "08 Sep 2000 11:51:44 +0200" Original-Lines: 15 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:32357 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:32357 Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai =?iso-8859-1?q?Gro=DFjohann?=) writes: > I think that MUAs are supposed to remove the leading whitespace from > continuation lines. Or are they supposed to replace that with a > single space? I'm not sure. RFC822 (3.1.1) says: "Unfolding is accomplished by regarding CRLF immediately followed by a LWSP-char as equivalent to the LWSP-char." So the leading whitespace shouldn't be removed, which means extra whitespace, other than the line break, shouldn't have been inserted. (Assuming that this isn't another case of RFC822 being out of line with reality.) paul