From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/9848 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Per Abrahamsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: mbox quoting (was: Re: Gnus, movemail, POP3, trailing empty lines) Date: 09 Feb 1997 16:32:50 +0100 Organization: The Church of Emacs Sender: abraham@dina.kvl.dk Message-ID: References: <8c20aqt4d3.fsf@gadget.cscaper.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035149810 20900 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:36:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:36:50 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA24562 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 07:48:52 -0800 Original-Received: from elc1.dina.kvl.dk (elc1.dina.kvl.dk [130.225.40.228]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:34:18 +0100 Original-Received: from zuse.dina.kvl.dk (zuse.dina.kvl.dk [130.225.40.245]) by elc1.dina.kvl.dk (8.6.12/8.6.4) with ESMTP id QAA14256; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:24:20 +0100 Original-Received: (abraham@localhost) by zuse.dina.kvl.dk (8.6.12/8.6.4) id QAA07044; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 16:32:51 +0100 Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no X-Face: +kRV2]2q}lixHkE{U)mY#+6]{AH=yN~S9@IFiOa@X6?GM|8MBp/ In-Reply-To: Randal Schwartz's message of 09 Feb 1997 07:56:40 -0700 Original-Lines: 34 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.11/Emacs 19.34 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9848 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9848 Randal Schwartz writes: > Huh? What if my *original* message just happened to have ">From " in one > of the lines? You've now turned it into "From ". No. "\n>From " matches the regexp "^>*From " and is therefore quoted by this algorithm when imported. When exported, the quote is removed. I.e. plain file: >From whatever becomes when added to the mbox: >>From whatever and then again when exported to plain text: >From whatever Zero corruption. The arguments for are: - When used on new messages, the new algorithm is always perfect. - When used on old messages, the new algorithm is usually better. The argument against: - Better continue with well known corruption of new messages, than to make any risk of introducing new kinds of corruption to old messages.