🚀 go-pugleaf

Sorry, I posted the wrong reply.  Here's the correct one.

On Tue, 29 Dec 92 14:37:09 EST tom@crc.doc.ca (Thomas Erskine) said:
>In article <9212260325.AA18454@SERVER.uwindsor.ca> you write:
>>When one is emailed a folder where each item starts with a "From "
>>...
>use.  Do you really mail whole mail folders a lot?  I've only ever

The kicker here is I want to *receive*, *not* send such folders.
And whether I receive/send such files in any amount isn't relevant
to the matter of some people having decided to ignore good manners
by implementing software that messes up envelops and contents of a
mail item.  Imagine if the snailmail post office people did this to
ones mail...
BTW, there is at least one opsys where email is treated with more
respect and concern for privacy than what seems to be the norm in
the Unix environment.


>>If not, what is the *EXACT* command to give to "vi" in order to
>>remove those ">"s?  Of course *ONLY* on those header lines; I'll
>>accept any such occurances in the contents of the items (though
>>not really gracefully...).
>:1,$s/^>From /From /
>Should fix any such lines in the file.  Unfortunately, if there were any
>that were inside a message in that folder, those will also be un-marked.
>I can't think of any automated way to avoid this.

A private reply gave me the following alternative:
    :%s/^>\(From .*\)/\1/c
which askes for confirmation at each occurrance.


And I'm sure someone in the world of Unix gurus can come up with a
filter that only cleans up header lines which conform to the syntax
used on the "From " line.
What bugs me is the nigh impossibility of undoing any harm done to
the *contents* of the item, and I don't want to mess up things even
more by also going for occurrances in the item-body.


>>A propos, where in the whole email chain does this ">" get prefixed
>>...
>The keywords are "history" and "compatability".  Unix mail has from the
>very early days "separated" messages in a folder by lines beginning with
>"From ".  If the messages aren't separated this way then common
>...

Thanks, Tom.  This has cleared up a point I've been curious about
ever since I was exposed to the SMTP suite of programs in an IBM
environment.  In short, it comes down to not having a unique enough
item-separator, and/or not sticking each item in its own (spool-)
file...

I've also requested a solution to this problem on the unix-listserv
discussion list <unix-listserv@stormking.com>.  IMHO it should be
approached from that side also, and hopefully both MUA-implementors
and mailing-list implementors can come up with a neat, state-of-the-art
solution.


Regards.
$$/        F. Scott Ophof  <ophof@server.uwindsor.ca>