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: 16 Oct 2003 23:44:05 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <8765ioc0yi.fsf@oak.pohoyda.family> References: <200310121947.h9CJlhKH006102@oak.pohoyda.family> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1066340864 7415 80.91.224.253 (16 Oct 2003 21:47:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:47:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 16 23:47:42 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 1AAFyA-0005Fr-00 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:47:42 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AAFyA-000701-00 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:47:42 +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 1AAFwh-0001Hq-H0 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:46:11 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AAFvb-0000nV-6o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:45:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AAFuu-0008Bq-9v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:44:51 -0400 Original-Received: from [213.165.64.20] (helo=mail.gmx.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AAFuo-0008AA-Ch for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:44:14 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 5957 invoked by uid 65534); 16 Oct 2003 21:44:09 -0000 Original-Received: from p508BEA30.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO oak.pohoyda.family) (80.139.234.48) by mail.gmx.net (mp013) with SMTP; 16 Oct 2003 23:44:09 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14602519 Original-Received: from oak.pohoyda.family (oak.pohoyda.family [127.0.0.1]) by oak.pohoyda.family (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9GLi85d002010; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:44:08 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from alexander.pohoyda@gmx.net) Original-Received: (from apog@localhost) by oak.pohoyda.family (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h9GLi7VM002007; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:44:07 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from alexander.pohoyda@gmx.net) X-Authentication-Warning: oak.pohoyda.family: apog set sender to alexander.pohoyda@gmx.net using -f Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 Original-Lines: 47 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:17177 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:17177 Stefan Monnier writes: > > When we convert the email to babyl format, we can do some > > MIME-related processing on it, for example: all text/* bodyparts > > may be transfer-encoding (quoted-printable and base64) decoded, > > PGP/GPG signatures verified, PGP/GPG decryption done, header > > fields of type =?...?B?...?= decoded (RFC 2047) and unfolded (RFC > > 2822), etc. This needs to be done once. No information is lost in > > this step. No structure information is lost either. > > In order not to lose information, you need to keep the GPG > signatures you have just verified since you can't re-create them > yourself. Sure, I'm just hiding that bodypart at display time. > Of > course, you also need to keep the signed-text unless you're > super-extra-careful to make sure that you can re-create the exact > same byte-sequence from the rest of the data, which is rather > unlikely. OK, let's keep the signed text un-changed, but I would prefer to do the decoding on normal messages. As Eli points out, this is logical to do once on message arrival. > Why do people even consider doing any processing at that point? Just to optimise the process. Doing it every time in show-message is even simplier from the programmer's point of view. > The processing should be done for display and nothing else, because > any other option will make you lose information at some point and > also forces you to have code to re-create the original format, > whereas the "display-side processing" approach only needs to parse > MIME but never needs to re-construct it. You are right, but let's focus on the need not to invent the RMAIL-MIME, no additional header in between the message. Do you agree that hiding header fields is preferred to having two message headers? -- Alexander Pohoyda PGP Key fingerprint: 7F C9 CC 5A 75 CD 89 72 15 54 5F 62 20 23 C6 44