bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[jpff]

Just tried to sumaraise my mailfile by a label
l command that is
Total failure

Debugger entered--Lisp error: (args-out-of-range [(65 "answered") (68 "deleted") (69 "edited") (70 "filed") (82 "retried") (83 "forwarded") (85 "unseen") (114 "resent")] 8)
  rmail-get-attr-names(16410)
  rmail-get-labels(16410)
  rmail-message-labels-p(16410 " \\(concert\\)\\(,\\|\\'\\)")
  apply(rmail-message-labels-p 16410 " \\(concert\\)\\(,\\|\\'\\)")
  rmail-new-summary-1("labels concert" (rmail-summary-by-labels "concert") rmail-message-labels-p (" \\(concert\\)\\(,\\|\\'\\)"))
  rmail-new-summary("labels concert" (rmail-summary-by-labels "concert") rmail-message-labels-p " \\(concert\\)\\(,\\|\\'\\)")
  rmail-summary-by-labels("concert")
  call-interactively(rmail-summary-by-labels nil nil)

This is a real loss.  Not yet looked at the code


In GNU Emacs 23.0.90.8 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.12.0)
 of 2009-02-09 on cardew
Windowing system distributor `The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.70200000
Important settings:
  value of $LC_ALL: nil
  value of $LC_COLLATE: nil
  value of $LC_CTYPE: nil
  value of $LC_MESSAGES: nil
  value of $LC_MONETARY: nil
  value of $LC_NUMERIC: nil
  value of $LC_TIME: nil
  value of $LANG: en_GB.UTF-8
  value of $XMODIFIERS: @im=local
  locale-coding-system: utf-8-unix
  default-enable-multibyte-characters: t

Major mode: Debugger

Minor modes in effect:
  shell-dirtrack-mode: t
  auto-image-file-mode: t
  show-paren-mode: t
  display-time-mode: t
  tooltip-mode: t
  mouse-wheel-mode: t
  menu-bar-mode: t
  file-name-shadow-mode: t
  global-font-lock-mode: t
  font-lock-mode: t
  global-auto-composition-mode: t
  auto-composition-mode: t
  auto-encryption-mode: t
  auto-compression-mode: t
  line-number-mode: t
  transient-mark-mode: t

Recent input:
<up> C-x 2 C-x C-f <backspace> <backspace> <backspace> 
<backspace> <backspace> <backspace> <backspace> <backspace> 
<backspace> <backspace> <backspace> <backspace> <backspace> 
C V / c v , <backspace> . t e <tab> <return> C-s c 
u b b o n <down-mouse-1> <mouse-movement> <mouse-movement> 
<drag-mouse-1> <help-echo> <down-mouse-2> <mouse-2> 
<down-mouse-1> <mouse-1> C r o s s i n g SPC t h e 
SPC D a r k SPC R i f t <help-echo> <down-mouse-2> 
<mouse-2> B e a t s y s t e m <down-mouse-1> <mouse-movement> 
<mouse-movement> <drag-mouse-1> SPC <down-mouse-2> 
<mouse-2> SPC J o h n SPC f f i t c h <down-mouse-1> 
<mouse-movement> <mouse-movement> <drag-mouse-1> <down-mouse-2> 
<mouse-2> A r c h e r SPC E n d r i c h <down> <down> 
<down> <down> <up> <up> <up> <up> <up> <up> <up> C-x 
o C-x k <return> M-R r i c k <return> M-R <return> 
M-R C-h C-g <prior> <prior> <down-mouse-1> <mouse-1> 
<prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> 
<prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> 
<prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> 
<prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> M-R <return> 
<prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> 
<prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> <prior> 
<prior> <prior> <prior> M-R <return> <prior> <prior> 
M-R <return> <prior> <prior> <down> <down> <down> <down> 
<down> <down> <down> <down> <down> <down> <down> <down> 
<down> <down> <down> <down> <down> <down> <down> <down> 
<down> <down> <down> M-R <return> <down-mouse-1> <mouse-movement> 
<mouse-movement> <drag-mouse-1> <help-echo> <down-mouse-2> 
<mouse-2> <down-mouse-1> <mouse-movement> <mouse-movement> 
<drag-mouse-1> <down-mouse-2> <mouse-2> R i c h a r 
d SPC B o u l a n g e r <help-echo> <down-mouse-1> 
<mouse-1> <prior> l c o n c e r t <return> q l c o 
n c e r t <return> M-x r m a i l <backspace> <backspace> 
<backspace> <backspace> e p o r t - <tab> <return>

Recent messages:
Reverse Rmail search for rick...done
Reverse Rmail search for rick...done
Reverse Rmail search for rick...done
Reverse Rmail search for rick...done
Mark set [2 times]
Computing summary lines...0 [16409 times]
Entering debugger...
Back to top level.
Computing summary lines...0 [16409 times]
Entering debugger...

==John ffitch

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[Glenn Morris]

jpff wrote:

> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (args-out-of-range [(65 "answered") (68 "deleted") (69 "edited") (70 "filed") (82 "retried") (83 "forwarded") (85 "unseen") (114 "resent")] 8)
>   rmail-get-attr-names(16410)

What does the X-RMAIL-ATTRIBUTES: header in message 16410 look like?
I'm guessing it is corrupted.

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[root]

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Glenn Morris wrote:

> jpff wrote:
>
>> Debugger entered--Lisp error: (args-out-of-range [(65 "answered") (68 "deleted") (69 "edited") (70 "filed") (82 "retried") (83 "forwarded") (85 "unseen") (114 "resent")] 8)
>>   rmail-get-attr-names(16410)
>
> What does the X-RMAIL-ATTRIBUTES: header in message 16410 look like?
> I'm guessing it is corrupted.
>

It says

From mantaraya36@gmail.com Mon Mar 10 11:22:33 2008
X-RMAIL-ATTRIBUTES: --E-----
         x       X-Coding-System: iso-8859-1-unix
Return-path: <mantaraya36@gmail.com>
Envelope-to: jpff@codemist.co.uk
Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:22:33 +0000
Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.176])
 	by west.codemist.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
 	(envelope-from <mantaraya36@gmail.com>)
 	id 1JYg5D-0001Ay-4J
 	for jpff@codemist.co.uk; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:22:33 +0000
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m38so2212090waf.16
         for <jpff@codemist.co.uk>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
         d=gmail.com; s=gamma;

h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
         bh=eAdfe+KUAGyB46exC4Hz4RkYUojyGkrFaRadGwVoLAk=;

b=hK+0xccE/eZocss2U9zx238ITW+AW8hG/OI9FhYDd3GoFVJoaWC9HZHZkdGkmM3zIuSkxlI+3XkOxOcdExCqsMnP56boCOgYDRTa+FpaweIeLnXP8LH4M/s4YT423Unjgf40qHFXMBcmDxoFh097dpdB7mmaPliZpebw8uo1Eb0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
         d=gmail.com; s=gamma;

h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;

b=ACo5YZRbsAH7ghjoYWNrM4ZnnLnIeEPqlEnacE1rC7jo4hZyt0itCjEumwkhlbZBagi/Zygfx+a3MULhmfaw8IHi2WCxhgen5z3xg5WWK2fvCDiw7wfrI63bprb9nvSxh2bm7jf7AStvauC4UnouDrlJz+US4Kvz8z9MPX0LdN8=
Received: by 10.114.57.1 with SMTP id f1mr3234936waa.78.1205148127289;
         Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.177.14 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:22:07 -0700 
(PDT)
Message-ID: <6d8a7ed20803100422k2a9e481dy8ecc4733aeda7477@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:22:07 -0500
From: "Andres Cabrera" <mantaraya36@gmail.com>
To: jpff <jpff@codemist.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Loadable Opcodes in OLPC
In-Reply-To: <7277-Mon10Mar2008082727+0000-jpff@codemist.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <5D053EEC-6832-4E3D-A9AE-B52810EAAA55@comcast.net>
 	 <82A52A46-7D46-47E7-B28C-DFAE0F7A895B@comcast.net>
 	 <6d8a7ed20803092049r6bb8f646q433cf774042cbdd2@mail.gmail.com>
 	 <7277-Mon10Mar2008082727+0000-jpff@codemist.co.uk>
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)

If it is corrupted it is emacs that did it.

==John ff

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[Glenn Morris]

root wrote:

> X-RMAIL-ATTRIBUTES: --E-----
>         x       X-Coding-System: iso-8859-1-unix
> Return-path: <mantaraya36@gmail.com>

The second line is broken. Try editing it to

X-RMAIL-ATTRIBUTES: --E-----
X-Coding-System: iso-8859-1-unix
Return-path: <mantaraya36@gmail.com>

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:47:32 -0500
> Cc: 2251@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com, jpff <jpff@codemist.co.uk>
> 
> root wrote:
> 
> > X-RMAIL-ATTRIBUTES: --E-----
> >         x       X-Coding-System: iso-8859-1-unix
> > Return-path: <mantaraya36@gmail.com>
> 
> The second line is broken.

Bother.  Did Rmail produce that broken line?  If so, could it be that
my changes from two days ago are the culprit?

IOW, where did that "        x       " part before X-Coding-System
came from?

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[jpff]

>>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

 >> From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
 >> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:47:32 -0500
 >> Cc: 2251@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com, jpff <jpff@codemist.co.uk>
 >> 
 >> root wrote:
 >> 
 >> > X-RMAIL-ATTRIBUTES: --E-----
 >> >         x       X-Coding-System: iso-8859-1-unix
 >> > Return-path: <mantaraya36@gmail.com>
 >> 
 >> The second line is broken.

 Eli> Bother.  Did Rmail produce that broken line?  If so, could it be that
 Eli> my changes from two days ago are the culprit?

 Eli> IOW, where did that "        x       " part before X-Coding-System
 Eli> came from?

I did not do anything directly to break it so I assume that the new
rmail-mode did it.

I am have a number of problems/irritation with rmail; this is one of
them.  Others include not being able to read ~/RMAIL directly into
rmail-mode, and having to select coding mode every time I read new
mail and when I save mail.  OK, but tedious.
  Labels can be repeated
  No prompts for labels
  Unable to read po:jpff mail (may be fixed -- not been at desk today)
  Unseen not set when mail read (as far as I can see)

May be more....  Sorry not to propose solutions but I am having
trouble keeping up with stuff this month.

==John ffitch

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:28:18 +0000
> From: jpff <jpff@codemist.co.uk>
> CC: rgm@gnu.org, 2251@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com, root@codemist.co.uk
> 
>  >> > X-RMAIL-ATTRIBUTES: --E-----
>  >> >         x       X-Coding-System: iso-8859-1-unix
>  >> > Return-path: <mantaraya36@gmail.com>
>  >> 
>  >> The second line is broken.
> 
>  Eli> Bother.  Did Rmail produce that broken line?  If so, could it be that
>  Eli> my changes from two days ago are the culprit?
> 
>  Eli> IOW, where did that "        x       " part before X-Coding-System
>  Eli> came from?
> 
> I did not do anything directly to break it so I assume that the new
> rmail-mode did it.

Yes, but can you spot the "        x       ", or something that can
explain how it came about, in the original mbox file?

Rmail should just add the X-Coding-System header at the beginning of a
line, so I wonder how come it produced what you saw.  Please help me
understand that.

> I am have a number of problems/irritation with rmail; this is one of
> them.  Others include not being able to read ~/RMAIL directly into
> rmail-mode, and having to select coding mode every time I read new
> mail and when I save mail.

What do you mean by "not being able to read"? what happens if you try?
And what do you mean by "having to select coding mode"? please tell
more details about these problems.

>   Unseen not set when mail read (as far as I can see)

You mean unseen not _reset_, right?

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[Richard M Stallman]

      Others include not being able to read ~/RMAIL directly into
    rmail-mode,

Could you explain what that means?

		and having to select coding mode every time I read new
    mail and when I save mail.

What does that mean?  Could you please give a scenario?

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[jpff]

In the pre-mbox file i see

1, edited,,
Summary-line: 10-Mar      mantaraya36@gmail.com  [24] #Re: Loadable Opcodes in OLPC
        x       X-Coding-System: iso-8859-1-unix
Mail-from: From mantaraya36@gmail.com Mon Mar 10 11:22:33 2008

Cannot chase this further back easily.

It survived for a long time before being a problem

By "not being able to read" I mean that when I do C-X f RMAIL it
loads the file in fundamental mode and I have to do a M-x rmail-mode
before it behaves.  Previously there was a 
BABYL OPTIONS: -*- rmail -*-
at the head of the file and so the mode was selected.  It is this I
have been unable to reproduce

Regarding unseen I have been using a function
(defun rmail-first-unseen ()
  (interactive)
  (rmail-show-message (rmail-first-unseen-message)))

for a while which I find very useful in the way I work.Now that
function fails -- either crashes or does not do anything.
I assumed this was because unseen was not set but I have not had time
to chase it.  Anyway is is a loss in functionality.

Happy to join in chasing these lacuna, as without emacs rmail-mode I
am lost

==John ffitch

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[Glenn Morris]

jpff wrote:

> Regarding unseen I have been using a function
> (defun rmail-first-unseen ()
>   (interactive)
>   (rmail-show-message (rmail-first-unseen-message)))
>
> for a while which I find very useful in the way I work.Now that
> function fails -- either crashes or does not do anything.

It seems you need to use "rmail-show-message-maybe" now.

I find it ridiculous the number of gratuitous changes that seem to
have accompanied the change in Rmail's storage format.

I have no idea what the hell the difference between the -maybe and
sans-maybe versions of this function are (anyone?), but I suggest we
rename "rmail-show-message-maybe" to "rmail-show-message", and call
the other one "rmail-show-message-1" or something.

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[Stefan Monnier]

> I have no idea what the hell the difference between the -maybe and
> sans-maybe versions of this function are (anyone?), but I suggest we
> rename "rmail-show-message-maybe" to "rmail-show-message", and call
> the other one "rmail-show-message-1" or something.

That sounds right,


        Stefan

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  2251@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com,  root@codemist.co.uk
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:28:40 -0500
> 
> I have no idea what the hell the difference between the -maybe and
> sans-maybe versions of this function are (anyone?), but I suggest we
> rename "rmail-show-message-maybe" to "rmail-show-message", and call
> the other one "rmail-show-message-1" or something.

Yes, I agree.

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:02:46 +0000
> From: jpff <jpff@codemist.co.uk>
> CC: rgm@gnu.org, 2251@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com, root@codemist.co.uk
> 
> In the pre-mbox file i see
> 
> 1, edited,,
> Summary-line: 10-Mar      mantaraya36@gmail.com  [24] #Re: Loadable Opcodes in OLPC
>         x       X-Coding-System: iso-8859-1-unix

OK, so the corrupted line came from your BABYL file, which probably
means the current Rmail is not guilty here.

> Mail-from: From mantaraya36@gmail.com Mon Mar 10 11:22:33 2008
> 
> Cannot chase this further back easily.
> 
> It survived for a long time before being a problem

I will try to look into making Rmail less sensitive to such
problematic files.

> By "not being able to read" I mean that when I do C-X f RMAIL it
> loads the file in fundamental mode and I have to do a M-x rmail-mode
> before it behaves.  Previously there was a 
>    BABYL OPTIONS: -*- rmail -*-
> at the head of the file and so the mode was selected.  It is this I
> have been unable to reproduce

That's a known issue with mbox files.  For now, I suggest to use
"C-u M-x rmail RET ~/RMAIL RET" instead of "C-x C-f".

Btw, please always indent BABYL headers, such as the one above, when
you insert them in your mail, because Rmail doesn't like that, and
part of your message is lost.

> Regarding unseen I have been using a function
> (defun rmail-first-unseen ()
>   (interactive)
>   (rmail-show-message (rmail-first-unseen-message)))
> 
> for a while which I find very useful in the way I work.Now that
> function fails -- either crashes or does not do anything.

Please show one or two cases of these failures.

> Happy to join in chasing these lacuna, as without emacs rmail-mode I
> am lost

So am I.

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[jpff]

>>>>> "Richard" == Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

 Richard>     >  Others include not being able to read ~/RMAIL directly into
 Richard>     > rmail-mode,

 Richard> Could you explain what that means?

find-file (C-f) opens the file in fundamental mode, and I have to do
M-x rmail-mode in order to use it.  This is the case for all mail
files, and I have many.  Previously there was a line
       BABYL OPTIONS: -*- rmail -*-
which dealt with this.  I have been recommended the awkward "C-u M-x
rmail C-f RMAIL" which I clearly got wrong this morning (perhaps that
shoudl be rmail-mode ?)

 Richard> 	>	and having to select coding mode every time I read new
 Richard>       > mail and when I save mail.

 Richard> What does that mean?  Could you please give a scenario?

Whenever I save my RMAIL file, or read new mail I got a message about
having to select a coding as \201 and some others could not be
represented.  I selected raw-text, and the same happened next time.  I
tried just now and this seems to be fixed, but was not yesterday.

I looks like some progress is being made to rmail-mode
Something really needs to be done about MIME attachments though!

==John ffitch

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[Richard M Stallman]

    find-file (C-f) opens the file in fundamental mode, and I have to do
    M-x rmail-mode in order to use it.

So if we can recognize Rmail files automatically, such as by looking for
its special headers,  that would fix this?

bug#2251: 23.0.90; Summary by label in RMAIL

[Glenn Morris]

Glenn Morris wrote:

> To summarize, the issue here is that a corrupted BABYL file
>
> http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=2251#51
>
> produced a corrupted mbox file, which RMAIL choked on.
>
> The right solution would seem to be to try and detect the
> corrupted/unexpected BABYL file and either fix it when converting to
> mbox, or if it cannot be fixed abort the conversion with some
> informative error message so that the user can try to fix it by hand
> before converting. Ie do some basic sanity-checking of the input BABYL
> file, to see it has the expected format.

5 years on, it's time to close this as wontfix, since no-one has any
interest in improving support for the by obsolete babyl format,
especially in fringe cases like this.