From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ulrich Mueller Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Supercite and mail-citation-hook Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:41:46 +0100 Message-ID: <19179.27562.403821.797322@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1256942538 10604 80.91.229.12 (30 Oct 2009 22:42:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:42:18 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 30 23:42:11 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1N40Ac-0004EM-UW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:42:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55757 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N40Ac-0006Nw-9t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:42:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N40AX-0006NX-EC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:42:05 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N40AS-0006Kq-4w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:42:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38755 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N40AR-0006Km-TH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:41:59 -0400 Original-Received: from a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de ([134.93.134.1]:42875) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N40AR-0003Jt-CW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:41:59 -0400 Original-Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) by a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.0/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n9UMfk7q014146 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:41:46 +0100 Original-Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.3/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n9UMfkGE029058; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:41:46 +0100 Original-Received: (from ulm@localhost) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n9UMfkiQ029055; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:41:46 +0100 X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12 under 23.1.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:116483 Archived-At: I am trying to debug a problem with Supercite's attribution line when used with the VM mailreader, and I'm not sure which of the two programs is to blame. Supercite is called by VM in the standard way, i.e. via mail-citation-hook and function sc-cite-original. The problem occurs when replying to an e-mail message with a QP-encoded "From" header, which will have a broken attribution line like the following: >>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ulrich_M=FCller?= wrote: Now the Supercite Info file says in section 10 "Hints to MUA Authors": | [...] when setting up a reply or forward buffer, your MUA should | follow these steps: | | 1. Insert the original message, including the mail headers into the | reply buffer. At this point you should not modify the raw text in | any way, and you should place all the original headers into the | body of the reply. [...] The wording ("not modify the raw text in any way", "original headers") seems to indicate that the MUA shouldn't do any decoding here. However, Supercite also doesn't do any QP decoding, which leads to the above broken attribution line. So my question is, who should decode the headers? The MUA (then the documentation of mail-citation-hook in sc.texi should be changed or clarified), or Supercite (then it's a bug there)? Ulrich