From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Evil Boris Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Rmail-mbox branch Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:46:46 -0400 Message-ID: <841w03v389.fsf@boris.laptop> References: <87zlprvod0.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4868CF84.1040005@pajato.com> <48A90589.4020804@pajato.com> <48A91146.60200@pajato.com> <48A968A3.8050806@pajato.com> <48BA1DAE.2030005@pajato.com> <874p51xblf.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <84od39q9mv.fsf@boris.laptop> <84abesum0g.fsf@boris.laptop> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1220312839 8320 80.91.229.12 (1 Sep 2008 23:47:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:47:19 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 02 01:48:13 2008 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 1KaJ7x-0000LC-Q6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:48:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48640 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KaJ6y-0006Bl-P2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:47:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KaJ6u-0006Bg-Te for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:47:04 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KaJ6s-0006BU-Gf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:47:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45051 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KaJ6s-0006BR-BA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:47:02 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:51550 helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KaJ6r-0000dV-K9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:47:02 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KaJ6l-0000rm-Sm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:46:55 +0000 Original-Received: from 207-38-194-119.c3-0.wsd-ubr5.qens-wsd.ny.cable.rcn.com ([207.38.194.119]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:46:55 +0000 Original-Received: from evilborisnet by 207-38-194-119.c3-0.wsd-ubr5.qens-wsd.ny.cable.rcn.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:46:55 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 78 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 207-38-194-119.c3-0.wsd-ubr5.qens-wsd.ny.cable.rcn.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:XfW7ALtcxtigvuPw8GF+KDsPN5g= X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:103400 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Evil Boris >> Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:46:23 -0400 >> > I don't see why the mbox branch would support this any worse than the > trunk. The decoding stuff is pretty much stable and well understood, > after so many releases. I was trying to dig up where I found something that made me suspect the abitility of Rmail-mbox to deal with non-ASCII, and after much digging through archives found the following: >From: Henrik Enberg telia.com> >Subject: Re: status of the rmail-mbox branch? >Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel >Date: 2007-03-06 14:01:27 GMT (1 year, 25 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours and 36 minutes ago) > > Francesco Potorti` gnu.org> writes: > > What is the current status of the rmail-mbox branch? > > > > Does it have the same functionalities as the regular rmail? > > Not entirely. It is certainly possible to use it to read email, but is > has some deficencies in the area of coding-systems. It currently > doesn't do any decoding from raw-text at all. The main problem is that > if we want interoperability with other tools (which I guess is the main > reason to switch to the mbox format), we can't really encode the > mailboxes with emacs-mule anymore as is done with BABYL boxes. It may not be relevant now. >> PS. Reading a multipart/alternative email with a text/plain component >> encoded in quoted-printable [in a non-latin-based character set] or >> base64 is currently a pain, as I have to detach and then play around >> with decoding the character set in the raw RMAIL file... > > ??? For me, it's as easy as > > . Type 'e' to make the message editable > > . Make region around the attachment > > . For base64-encoded attachments: > > M-x base64-decode-region RET > > . For quoted-printable: > > M-: (mail-unquote-printable-region (mark) (point) nil nil t) RET > > . C-c (to exit rmail-edit) > > . M-x rmail-redecode-body RET CHARSET-NAME RET > > where CHARSET-NAME is whatever appears in the charset= header of the > attachment, if different from US-ASCII. > > (Of course, the above are just the primitives; wrapping them with a > single command is left as an exercise for the interested readers.) I have been doing this on and off (mostly by hand) and have occasionally gotten completely incomprehensible gibberish, and a time or two an RMAIL file that RMAIL would not recognize. Sorry, no examples lying around [on a slightly different topic, my RMAIL file is filled with non-ASCII msgs that used to be perfectly legible and now do not display properly. I guess this is what happens when one uses cutting edge CVS version, and cannot affort to do a full "make bootstrap" on every update... separate story.] But there is a more general problem with this: I do not like losing data or making irreversible changes. If the said msg contained another alternative (say, HTML) that I later would discover contained some information I needed, I am not sure how easy it would be to get it back. Maybe I am just being paranoid. --Boris