1

In mutt, I'm trying to write formatted emails, but the pre-processing step that converts markdown to HTML is mangling the previous messages.

I'm using this answer to convert my messages to HTML.

In mutt, I can write a message literally like this:

Dear A

Summary of changes


    

  1. Item 1
    2. 

  2. Item 2
    3. 



B

and it ends up formatted as you'd expect. A sees B's well-formatted html.

Unfortunately, this mangles the reply thread, since markdown uses whitespace differently than the sender probably did. In addition the reply thread is rendered to white-space+text, rather than retaining markdown/html markup.

To see this, if B replies using the Mutt/HTML/Markdown tricks, pandoc will interpret the quoted text strangely, and mangle the reply text.

The result after B->A->B looks like (I had to edit a bit to remove emails and such, but the it's basically spot on)

A,
You mangled my reply, you twit, people do read the chain sometimes, you know

--B


On Tue, May 4, 2021, 3:49 PM A <a> wrote:


> B,
> I can do that too!

> With formatting!

>

>    1. One-again

>    2. Two-again

> --A

> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 03:48:21PM -0700, B <b> wrote: >

> > Summary of Changes > > > 1. Item 1 > > 2. Item 2 > > > >

>

Question

Is it possible (and how can I) edit in markdown, convert my message to HTML, and either attach prev replies unchanged, or (ideally) in-line previous replies unchanged.

Josh Vander Hook
  • 141
  • I appreciate the irony of complaining about mangled reply chains while top-posting. But, in short: 1. you can't stop other people mangling stuff in their replies. 2. un-mangling stuff after it has been mangled is extremely difficult to do reliably. 3. why not just send plaint-text/markdown emails wrapped in <pre> and </pre>? - HTML doesn't belong in email, anyway :-) – cas May 05 '21 at 06:37
  • Sorry, my question wasn't clear. For (1) and (2), the issue is I want to be a good citizen and not mangle others' replies. I can't help what they did, as you say. I'll edit. – Josh Vander Hook May 05 '21 at 15:37
  • And to address (3), you're right, this probably is not worth it. – Josh Vander Hook May 05 '21 at 15:39

0 Answers0