Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Answer to a blockquoted fragment might be shown incorrectly when "format=flowed" #4773

Closed
rcubetrac opened this issue Feb 19, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
1 participant
@rcubetrac
Copy link

commented Feb 19, 2015

Reported by netesa on 19 Feb 2015 09:33 UTC as Trac ticket #1490284

Roundcube doesn't display correctly an answer to a blockquoted fragment when the last line of the quoted answer is empty (it contains just ">" and the in the next new line there is an answer). The problem occurs only with "format=flowed".

It isn't also parsed correctly in message composition window (e.g. when you select "Edit as new", forward or reply to such a message).

An example message is attached.

Migrated-From: http://trac.roundcube.net/ticket/1490284

@rcubetrac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Feb 19, 2015

Comment by @alecpl on 19 Feb 2015 09:45 UTC

Confirmed.

@rcubetrac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Feb 19, 2015

Milestone changed by @alecpl on 19 Feb 2015 09:45 UTC

later => 1.1.1

@rcubetrac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Feb 19, 2015

Comment by @alecpl on 19 Feb 2015 14:32 UTC

From what I see that message is displayed correctly according to RFC3676. According to the RFC a line containing "> " (bracket and a space) is flowed. The problem could be solved by treating it as fixed, but I'm not sure it is a good solution. I think the problem might be somewhere in reply creation code.

Could you provide the original message to which you did respond and precise steps to reproduce?

@rcubetrac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Feb 19, 2015

Comment by @alecpl on 19 Feb 2015 15:41 UTC

I was wrong, there's that case described in RFC3676 section 4.5. Fixed in 13e0a65.

@rcubetrac

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Feb 19, 2015

Status changed by @alecpl on 19 Feb 2015 15:41 UTC

new => closed

@rcubetrac rcubetrac closed this Feb 19, 2015

@rcubetrac rcubetrac added this to the 1.1.1 milestone Mar 20, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.