From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark Lillibridge Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Change in rmail-insert-mime-forwarded-message Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:43:56 -0800 Message-ID: <87hamttxf7.fsf@foil.strangled.net> References: Reply-To: mdl@alum.mit.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1357550766 18279 80.91.229.3 (7 Jan 2013 09:26:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 09:26:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 07 10:26:23 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ts8yM-0008Pb-U6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 10:26:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34330 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ts8y7-0007xL-F0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 04:26:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43373) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ts4ZC-0003Fd-MU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 23:44:10 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ts4Z8-00006G-HL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 23:44:06 -0500 Original-Received: from alum-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu ([18.7.68.17]:58895) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ts4Z4-00005U-8u; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 23:43:58 -0500 X-AuditID: 12074411-b7fa36d0000008cc-20-50ea528de058 Original-Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.33]) by alum-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 31.D6.02252.D825AE05; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 23:43:57 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from foil.strangled.net (c-67-188-235-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.235.212]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as mdl@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id r074htSP024633 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 6 Jan 2013 23:43:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Richard Stallman on Sun, 6 Jan 2013 21:18:56 -0500) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrNIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqNsb9CrAYMp1IYvHC56wWkz9eIbN YsqSrewOzB5/339g8mibZhbAFMVtk5RYUhacmZ6nb5fAndF25ghjwQT2iuOd59gbGM+xdjFy ckgImEicXnqaCcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAZUaJuyv+M0M4V5gkzqzqZwGpYhPQlJj+7Ds7iC0i ICjxbPs5NhCbWUBc4sfdPrCpwgJWEjtfdjCC2JwCJRKzWpvA6oUEpCSWLjoBZrMIqEp0vN3F DGLzCuhLHGnvZYOwBSVOznzCAjFTQuLgixfMExj5ZiFJzUKSWsDItIpRLjGnNFc3NzEzpzg1 Wbc4OTEvL7VI11QvN7NELzWldBMjJNgEdzDOOCl3iFGAg1GJh1fb+FWAEGtiWXFl7iFGSQ4m JVFeS3+gEF9SfkplRmJxRnxRaU5q8SFGCQ5mJRFeHnugHG9KYmVValE+TEqag0VJnJdvibqf kEB6YklqdmpqQWoRTFaGg0NJgndtIFCjYFFqempFWmZOCUKaiYMTZDiXlEhxal5KalFiaUlG PCjG4ouBUQaS4gHaGwPSzltckJgLFIVoPcVozNHw8sZTRo5fK28+ZRRiycvPS5US520DKRUA Kc0ozYNbBEszrxjFgf4W5k0HqeIBpii4ea+AVjEBrUp9/BxkVUkiQkqqgXFqotNFcfdFuZsl HzRpCRffzFy2meVWifG6melhAZsu8TszCe17I6nqtMk87Op/zgXJUT9/5BxR1rbtjwztLKrc JPMtrEbGWILb/a2zT+YDpU98/V0rlj+MOCHJtX/hp+rtgZb7990VmbBqP9PjRQEz X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 18.7.68.17 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 04:26:06 -0500 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:156112 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: > Your change in rmail-insert-mime-forwarded-message caused a horrible > bug: the entire RMAIL file was inserted in the message. > > I see two ways to fix this: either to revert your change, and insert > the message as viewed, or to insert only the current (undecoded) > message. I don't know which way is better. Why do you think it is > better to insert the undecoded message rather than the visible > message? You want to insert the undecoded but unmbox-escaped message. When I tried the patch, I got the undecoded but mbox-escaped message but maybe I missed a corner case. I believe I submitted a bug about the need for adding the mbox-unescaping part as well. The visible message is very likely not a valid RFC message because it is missing headers and boundary parts. It also likely is missing some of the attachments. - Mark