On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:30:08AM +0200, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote: > I feel these days, muttprint is getting a bit stale. It is not suitable
Yeah, true. > to use with modern email: But this is not an argument. What is "modern email"? Bogusly formatted mail? Broken E-Mail from not proper encoding/proper MIME? (Note I am not a mail encoding/MIME expert but...)? HTML email? > - it keeps stuff like "Subject: =?utf-8?Q?blah blah?=" as-is and does not know > how to deal with this encoding of non-ascii stuff in Subject headers. AFAIK it takes what mutt see and gives to the print-command. If that Subject is broken so it is. > - it keeps stuff like > > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_ALT_59e07adc16e56" > Sender: <[email protected]> > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > Your email application may not support this format. > > --B_ALT_59e07adc16e56 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > Beste Joost Baal-Ilic, > > --B_ALT_59e07adc16e56 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <p>Beste Joost Baal-Ilic,</p> > > --B_ALT_59e07adc16e56-- > > just as-is and does not choose e.g. to just skip the html alternative. I have never had a problem printing mails which also has a html alternative. and I am using jessie on my server where I read mails... > I feel these lacking features should either > > - get added > - get properly and clearly documented. (The package Description currently has > "Muttprint formats the printing of Mutt and other mail clients to be as > pretty as the printing of Mozilla or Kmail."; I don't think that's still > true...) > - or the package should get removed from Debian No, one should just print a) proper mails and/or b) make them so that mutt displays them correct and/or fix mutt wrt b) > . How do you feel about this? Obviously I disagree. Regards, Rene
