When replying to a news article that contained <<some text inside less-than and great-than signs>> The quoting mechanism the creates the reply incorrectly inserts "signs>>" on each line following the line that ends with <<some text inside less-than and great-than signs>> Example of original news article: Line 1: The quoting mechanism in claws breaks with <<some text inside less-than and great-than signs>> Line 2: Maybe I'm lucky to encounter so many strange bugs in claws. Line 3: Hopefully the maintainers appreciate that some of us take the time to report bugs Line 4: It's not a trivial amount of time to report bugs. The reply will look like so: Line 1: > The quoting mechanism in claws breaks with <<some text inside less-than and great-than Line 2: > signs>> Maybe I'm "lucky" to encounter so many strange bugs in claws. Line 3: > signs>> Hopefully the maintainers appreciate that some of us take the time to report bugs Line 4: > signs>> It's not a trivial amount of time to report bugs. Notice that signs>> is repeated on each line of the reply until a blank line is encountered.
Tried in numerous ways to reproduce this, (which, incidentally probably took longer than the time you spent reporting it), and I cannot reproduce this. Either your description is lacking a vital piece of information or you are mistaken.
If I save the original news article to disk line 1 looks like so Line 1: The quoting mechanism in claws breaks with <<some text inside less-than and great-than signs>=\r\n The file-saved headers include these: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Each saved line of text that is 75 chars or more ends with =\r\n or if you like =crlf So in this case note that the signs>> would get split and the last > would begin line 2 in the reply. I think this is specific enough for you to reproduce this. I certainly can repro this here. All the lines in the original have 76 or more chars.
Attaching an example message always works better than trying to describe the message. A description is easy to misinterpret by the reader, and it's easy for the describer to miss out critical details. So please attach a message file that exhibits this behaviour for you.
I'd place my money on the problem living inside quoted-printable.c. I don't have the original anymore.
Marvin, No need to change from WORKSFORME to WONTFIX. The former is accurate, the latter is wrong.