From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/9891 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Pieri Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: mbox quoting (was: Re: Gnus, movemail, POP3, trailing empty lines) Date: 11 Feb 1997 11:13:07 -0500 Message-ID: References: <0fbu9soebf.fsf@fraxinus.daimi.aau.dk> <8clo8v4i0j.fsf@gadget.cscaper.com> <8civ3za2nc.fsf@gadget.cscaper.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035149848 21171 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:37:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:37:28 +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 JAA29829 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:31:02 -0800 Original-Received: from londo.asds.com ([199.103.216.62]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:14:04 +0100 Original-Received: from gkar.asds.com (gkar.asds.com [111.17.19.1]) by londo.asds.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id LAA11546 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:13:21 -0500 Original-Received: (from ratinox@localhost) by gkar.asds.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA06871; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:13:20 -0500 Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no In-Reply-To: Per Abrahamsen's message of 11 Feb 1997 15:16:44 +0100 Original-Lines: 45 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.12/Emacs 19.34 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9891 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9891 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> "PA" == Per Abrahamsen writes: PA> Using "old" quoting on an "old" box will also break things, and worse PA> than either of the two above. PA> "old" + "old" gives you: much damage, but damage we are used to. No... because one will never perform quoting on an old mbox, under the assumption that if any quoting is necessary on that mbox has already been performed. The old mbox is never dequoted, so further quoting is unnecessary. PA> "old" + "new" gives you: less, but different, damage. If so, it is because the new algorithm is broken. If a message body has been quoted it should not be quoted again. This "new" algorithm blatantly transforms the message body when such transformation may be unnecessary. If any damage occours to the message due to this transformation it is clearly the algorithm that is responsible. PA> "new" + "new" gives you: no damage. PA> The only way to avoid breaking things is "new" quoting on a "new" box. No, because most modern MUAs know about the standard/conventional method. What you are proposing will (or at least may) break them even if it does not damage messages in Gnus. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMwCalZ6VRH7BJMxHAQGSiwP/d1XA955zcxvZVg35YZ0Y0CcOmCC+AU9a 5pRIi4w6tRao7/36hkTaTOIoYyf2gZhIh2lNgjx++WU45vJGeSSRkrD/7hektJ3x EIQhsITpCYLDlWVKAC5VeZ4oniqTrUumZcUANRtqkVgtrF71A9H8OcgcJ0/Fw952 RV3u5dVOAGY= =OMLF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Rich Pieri | Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid Prescient Technologies, Inc. | core, which, if exposed due to A Stone & Webster Company | rupture, should not be touched, I speak for myself, not PTI or SWEC | inhaled, or looked at.