From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Alexander Pohoyda" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RMAIL, MIME-related bug Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:14:55 +0200 (MEST) Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <28709.1066310095@www21.gmx.net> References: <2914-Thu16Oct2003132048+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1066310794 23873 80.91.224.253 (16 Oct 2003 13:26:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:26:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 16 15:26:31 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AA899-00084y-00 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:26:31 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AA898-00068v-00 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:26:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AA88o-0004K1-Cb for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:26:10 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AA88h-0004I8-PA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:26:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AA7y4-0001qm-Gd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:15:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [213.165.64.20] (helo=mail.gmx.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AA7y0-0001ox-4t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:15:00 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 29863 invoked by uid 0); 16 Oct 2003 13:14:55 -0000 Original-Received: from 194.39.131.39 by www21.gmx.net with HTTP; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:14:55 +0200 (MEST) Original-To: Eli Zaretskii X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Authenticated: #14602519 X-Mailer: WWW-Mail 1.6 (Global Message Exchange) X-Flags: 0001 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:17147 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:17147 > > The problem is that we have to do this > > after the mail is reformated, but there is no valid MIME message after > > the rmail-reformat-message call: the message is broken into two parts > > by the EOOH marker. > > To be able to MIME-parse it, I have to glue the message back and > > delete the "simplified" header in between. > > I don't understand why is it important to have the message in its > original pre-`rmail-reformat-message' form. Because, after reformatting it is not a MIME message anymore! You agreed that we can do some mail processing before reformatting and you agree that we have to do even more processing after reformatting. Thus, if we want to use the same functions to do the job, we have to teach them to ignore this "simplified" header. Now, MIME is recursive and this means that we have to do this ignoring in every media type handler. Is there anything we gain with this implementation? OK, this may not be that important. I just don't see a reason why do we have to reformat the message just to ignore this reformatting later. Reformatting only introduces an obstacle. Why to do that? And, as I mentioned before, I cannot re-use the old machinery (namely: deleting header fields), thus header-field hiding will be necessary anyway. So why not to hide header fields everywhere instead of deleting them and reformatting the original message? > All the necessary MIME information is still there, part of it before > EOOH, part of it after. Yes, all information is there, but the structure is not. The structure is broken. There is no MIME message anymore. > So you ought to be able to figure out how to process the > message, right? What am I missing? Right, everything is possible. The only question is: does it make sense? In the end, if there is no other acceptable solution, I will have to do it this way. -- Alexander Pohoyda PGP Key fingerprint: 7F C9 CC 5A 75 CD 89 72 15 54 5F 62 20 23 C6 44