From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Change in rmail-insert-mime-forwarded-message Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 03:13:50 +0900 Message-ID: <87mwwja6g1.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87vcb89em4.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87a9sjtz3k.fsf@foil.strangled.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1357668837 20097 80.91.229.3 (8 Jan 2013 18:13:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:13:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: mdl@alum.mit.edu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 08 19:14:14 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 1Tsdgj-0003IG-DK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 19:14:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49172 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsdgT-0002Uv-Kl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:13:57 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52717) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsdgQ-0002Un-W9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:13:55 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsdgP-0007x5-MD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:13:54 -0500 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:47115) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsdgP-0007wx-CH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:13:53 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EABC970900; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 03:13:50 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 581C611F808; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 03:13:50 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <87a9sjtz3k.fsf@foil.strangled.net> X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta32) "habanero" b0d40183ac79 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 130.158.97.224 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:156155 Archived-At: Mark Lillibridge writes: > > "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > > > Mark Lillibridge writes: > > > > > Messages stored in mbox format have lines starting with >*From\ > > > escaped by adding an extra > at the front. This escaping needs to be > > > reversed to get the original message back. See bug #13329 for more > > > details. > > > > It's not particularly relevant to the problem Richard is reporting, > > but that's incorrect. mbox formats vary, but the most common ones > > stuff a ">" if and only if the string "From " occurs at the beginning > > of a line. If ">From" occurs at the beginning of a line, you can't > > know whether it was stuffed by the MDA or by the message author or > > what. > > Yes, mbox formats vary; I was describing mboxrd above, which I > believe is the current Rmail default and does not suffer from this > problem. Of course it does, if the MDA being used From-stuffs. Rmail is not a substitute for the system MDA or MTA. So by the time Rmail sees the message, it's already ambiguous. > See bug #6574 for why mboxo, which you describe above, corrupts > messages with ">From " lines. Either way, unescaping is required > for forwarding or resending messages (destination system may not > use mbox at all). Of course it's not "required"; this is a cosmetic issue. A stuffed message is inherently ambiguous, and any attempt to unstuff is going to be heuristic. If you unstuff this: >>From some of my correspondents, I occasionally receive mail >containing quotes in this style. before forwarding, some recipients will undoubtedly be unhappy with the results because their MDA doesn't stuff. Others won't notice because their MDA does stuff. Is it worth trying to accurately identify these odd cases?