Bug 184158 – app-misc/muttprint-0.72d doesn't format sig properly, fixed in upstream

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Description Tobias Brink 2007-07-04 01:38:41 UTC]

muttprint 0.72d as shipped with Gentoo doesn't recognize the e-mail signature and therefor doesn't format it properly (standard would be to print it in italics but it doesn't). This is due to the following difference to the upstream tarball (also 0.72d):

--- muttprint    2007-07-04 03:18:21.000000000 +0200
+++ /usr/bin/muttprint  2005-05-16 13:15:52.000000000 +0200
@@ -362,32 +362,7 @@

                #
                # signature
-               if (((/$Config{SIG_REGEXP}/o && !($Config{REM_SIG} eq "on")) ||
-                       $signature_mode) && $Config{VERBATIMSIG} ne "raw") {
-
-                       if (/$Config{SIG_REGEXP}/o) {
-                               $signature_mode = TRUE;
-
-                               # Leerzeile bei 2. Signatur
-                               if (defined $signature) {
-                                       $signature .= "\n";
-                               }
-                       }
-                       else {
-                               $signature .= $_;
-                       }
-
-                       # 2 Leerzeilen => Ende der Signatur
-                       if (/^$/ and $sig_mod_counter == 0) {
-                               $sig_mod_counter++;
-                       } elsif (/^$/ and $sig_mod_counter == 1) {
-                               $signature_mode = FALSE;
-                       } else {
-                               $sig_mod_counter = 0;
-                       }
-
-                       next;
-               }
+               last if (/$Config{SIG_REGEXP}/o && ($Config{REM_SIG} eq "on"));

                #
                # and what's about Quoting?

(- is upstream, + is gentoo).

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. install muttprint 0.72d
2. download and extract upstream tarball (version 0.72d) from http://muttprint.sourceforge.net/download.shtml
3. diff -u /path/to/upstream/muttprint /usr/bin/muttprint
Actual Results:  
files differ

Expected Results:  
files should be the same

[Comment 1 Tobias Brink 2007-07-04 02:19:36 UTC]

Upon further investigation I found the problem: there is a patch named "muttprint-rem_sig.patch" applied. This patch is wrong. It removes all code that would recognize a signature for formatting and replaces it with code which can remove the signature. Correct would be to only add the new code. IMHO the patch should look like this:

--- muttprint.old   2005-05-16 13:15:52.000000000 +0200
+++ muttprint  2007-07-04 04:11:55.000000000 +0200
@@ -388,6 +388,8 @@

                        next;
                }
+
+               last if (/$Config{SIG_REGEXP}/o && ($Config{REM_SIG} eq "on"));

                #
                # and what's about Quoting?

[Comment 2 Chema Alonso Josa (RETIRED) 2011-09-15 17:31:49 UTC]

Confirmed here,

Using muttprint without appliying the muttprint-rem_sig.patch works nicely. Signatures are printed in italics and they are hidden if REM_SIG="on" in .muttprintrc

I don't know exactly why they did remove this piece of code in bug #100607.

This package have no maintainer at the moment but I'll take care of it :-)

Thanks for reporting.

[Comment 3 Chema Alonso Josa (RETIRED) 2011-11-06 17:41:48 UTC]

Muttprint's version 0.72d-r3 fixes this bug.