1 Return-Path: <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46245431FC2
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none]
\r
13 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
14 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
15 with ESMTP id qOIRCXRIejUP for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
16 Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
\r
17 Received: from guru.guru-group.fi (guru.guru-group.fi [46.183.73.34])
\r
18 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B00431FAE
\r
19 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
\r
20 Received: from guru.guru-group.fi (localhost [IPv6:::1])
\r
21 by guru.guru-group.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8316100030;
\r
22 Wed, 28 Aug 2013 21:53:37 +0300 (EEST)
\r
23 From: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>
\r
24 To: Geoffrey Ferrari <geoffrey.ferrari@oriel.oxon.org>,
\r
25 notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
26 Subject: Re: [PATCH] emacs: bugfix notmuch-mua-reply when signature is present
\r
27 In-Reply-To: <m2sixtyb5k.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
\r
29 <1375961732-14327-1-git-send-email-geoffrey.ferrari@oriel.oxon.org>
\r
30 <m2sixtyb5k.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
\r
31 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.16+42~g938dae6 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1
\r
32 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
\r
33 X-Face: HhBM'cA~<r"^Xv\KRN0P{vn'Y"Kd;zg_y3S[4)KSN~s?O\"QPoL
\r
34 $[Xv_BD:i/F$WiEWax}R(MPS`^UaptOGD`*/=@\1lKoVa9tnrg0TW?"r7aRtgk[F
\r
35 !)g;OY^,BjTbr)Np:%c_o'jj,Z
\r
36 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 21:53:37 +0300
\r
37 Message-ID: <m2ob8hy7da.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
\r
39 Content-Type: text/plain
\r
40 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
41 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
43 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
44 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
45 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
46 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
47 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
48 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
49 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
50 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
51 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
52 X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 18:53:49 -0000
\r
54 On Wed, Aug 28 2013, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> wrote:
\r
56 > On Thu, Aug 08 2013, Geoffrey Ferrari <geoffrey.ferrari@oriel.oxon.org> wrote:
\r
58 >> From: "Geoffrey H. Ferrari" <geoffrey.ferrari@oriel.oxon.org>
\r
60 >> When composing a reply, notmuch-mua-reply tries to be smart and cite
\r
61 >> the original message by inserting it before the user signature, if
\r
62 >> one is present. However, the existing method of backward searching
\r
63 >> from the end of the buffer to find the signature separator and then
\r
64 >> moving one line up results in the original message being cited in
\r
65 >> the message headers. That's because at this point the message looks
\r
66 >> like this (with | representing point after searching for the
\r
67 >> signature separator):
\r
72 >> --text follows this line--
\r
74 >> My fancy signature
\r
76 > Now that I tested, (with ~/.signature), composing new mail starts with
\r
78 > --8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<-
\r
79 > From: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>
\r
82 > Fcc: /home/too/mail/mails/sent
\r
83 > --text follows this line--
\r
87 > --8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<---8<-
\r
89 > Notice the empty line between '--text follows this line--' and '--'
\r
91 > In your example, the signature block is -- for some reason --
\r
92 > inserted without the empty line.
\r
94 >> With this patch, a newline is opened instead, so that the orignal
\r
95 >> message is cited above the signature but still in the message text.
\r
99 >> (goto-char (point-max))
\r
100 >> (if (re-search-backward message-signature-separator nil t)
\r
101 >>- (forward-line -1)
\r
103 >> (goto-char (point-max)))
\r
105 If the case is like I think, it should have used (open-line 1) instead.
\r
107 Anyway, what about:
\r
109 (goto-char (point-max))
\r
110 (when (re-search-backward message-signature-separator nil t)
\r
116 The else clause with (goto-char (point-max)) is unnecessary as
\r
117 with the third argument NOERROR being t point is moved if
\r
118 re-search-backward doesn't find match.
\r