Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On 2012-11-29 06:43:06 +, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 16:06 -0500, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > Darren Salt writes: > > > (Oops. Failed first time.) > > > > > > Having just viewed the raw text of my message (as sent), there's one other > > > little wrinkle which I already knew but

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On 2012-11-29 01:39:57 +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 16:01 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > Even users of mboxo shouldn't even have a problem because in your > > message the F of the "From " line is encoded in quoted-printable: > > > > | =46rom blahhityblah Fri Ju

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On 2012-11-29 01:50:55 +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > It's like a serious flaw would have been found in gzip and people would > say... oh don't complain... there's already the much better/newer bzip2 > or xz. There's a major difference. mbox is buggy by design. Even though mboxrd attempt

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 08:23 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > Icedove 10.0.10 (Wheezy, no custom configuration on that front) here. Thunderbird is prone to the issue... and there are only few cases where it doesn't occur... Have a look at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=808450 especially my

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 05:29:20PM +, Jon Dowland wrote: > > The following SHOULD be 0, 1, and 2 levels of quoting, first to last. > > It was for me (Maildir) Just rechecked, I'm wrong - the first line was quoted. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a sub

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On 29-11-12 01:43, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 19:55 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: >> So if I understand correctly, I now identified my e-mail provider as >> using mboxo? I indeed got 1, 1 and 2 levels of quoting. > Depends... were you using his webmail? Then probably yes...

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 16:06 -0500, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > Darren Salt writes: > > (Oops. Failed first time.) > > > > Having just viewed the raw text of my message (as sent), there's one other > > little wrinkle which I already knew but had failed to consider and which > > makes testing of this use

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 16:32 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > So, what's the reason mbox is still the default in Debian? > Among other gains, data loss because of mboxo would be gone. Just posted some reasons[0] (but as I see now, some of them have already been named by others... But in general... I

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 19:55 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > So if I understand correctly, I now identified my e-mail provider as > using mboxo? I indeed got 1, 1 and 2 levels of quoting. Depends... were you using his webmail? Then probably yes... But it could have also been your local MUA (when you wer

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 16:01 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Even users of mboxo shouldn't even have a problem because in your > message the F of the "From " line is encoded in quoted-printable: > > | =46rom blahhityblah Fri Jul 8 12:08:34 2011 > | >From foobarbaz Fri Jul 8 12:08:34 2011 > | >>Fr

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

I demand that Nikolaus Rath may or may not have written... > Darren Salt writes: [snip] >> The following SHOULD be 0, 1, and 2 levels of quoting, first to last. >>>From blahhityblah Fri Jul 8 12:08:34 2011 >>>From foobarbaz Fri Jul 8 12:08:34 2011 From quux Fri Jul 8 12:08:34 2011 > This

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 03:34:32PM +, Darren Salt wrote: > (Oops. Failed first time.) > > Having just viewed the raw text of my message (as sent), there's one other > little wrinkle which I already knew but had failed to consider and which > makes testing of this useless: gpg handles any 'From

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

Darren Salt writes: > (Oops. Failed first time.) > > Having just viewed the raw text of my message (as sent), there's one other > little wrinkle which I already knew but had failed to consider and which > makes testing of this useless: gpg handles any 'From ' lines itself in a > reversible manner,

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

> The following SHOULD be 0, 1, and 2 levels of quoting, first to last. > >>From blahhityblah Fri Jul 8 12:08:34 2011 >>From foobarbaz Fri Jul 8 12:08:34 2011 >> >From quux Fri Jul 8 12:08:34 2011 So if I understand correctly, I now identified my e-mail provider as using mboxo? I indeed got 1,

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

* Jon Dowland , 2012-11-28, 17:29: Having just viewed the raw text of my message (as sent), there's one other little wrinkle which I already knew but had failed to consider and which makes testing of this useless: gpg handles any 'From ' lines itself in a reversible manner, using '- ' as the pr

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 03:34:32PM +, Darren Salt wrote: > Having just viewed the raw text of my message (as sent), there's one other > little wrinkle which I already knew but had failed to consider and which > makes testing of this useless: gpg handles any 'From ' lines itself in a > reversibl

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

(Oops. Failed first time.) Having just viewed the raw text of my message (as sent), there's one other little wrinkle which I already knew but had failed to consider and which makes testing of this useless: gpg handles any 'From ' lines itself in a reversible manner, using '- ' as the prefix. The

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

Having just viewed the raw text of my message (as sent), there's one other little wrinkle which I already knew but had failed to consider and which makes testing of this useless – gpg handles any â€ÿóÿýFrom ” lines itself in a -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.o

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I demand that Vincent Lefevre may or may not have written... > On 2012-11-28 11:47:38 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: >> Let's give it a test, this mail should be signed: >> From blahhityblah Fri Jul 8 12:08:34 2011 >>>From foobarbaz Fri Jul 8 12:08:34

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On 2012-11-28 11:47:38 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > Let's give it a test, this mail should be signed: > > From blahhityblah Fri Jul 8 12:08:34 2011 > >From foobarbaz Fri Jul 8 12:08:34 2011 > >>From quux Fri Jul 8 12:08:34 2011 > > If the signature is invalid, your setup is broken. Even user

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 07:52:16AM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Adam Borowski [121127 16:32]: > > So, what's the reason mbox is still the default in Debian? > > Because it works and causes the smallest amount of problems > given all the other changes. Like, locking issues, multiple ways to

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

* Adam Borowski [121127 16:32]: > So, what's the reason mbox is still the default in Debian? Because it works and causes the smallest amount of problems given all the other changes. > Among other gains, data loss because of mboxo would be gone. Continuing to call that "data loss" makes it quite

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:56:25AM +, Jon Dowland wrote: > For anyone else following along at home who is slightly puzzled by all this, > > explains the different mbox formats, what 'From_' means, etc. Quoting fr

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

For anyone else following along at home who is slightly puzzled by all this, explains the different mbox formats, what 'From_' means, etc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a su

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

Hey Henrique. On Sat, 2012-11-24 at 22:27 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > ... ?? > At least for postfix, I'd expect them to accept a patch for local(8) to > not quote From lines as a config option, First, I've never asked not to quote From_ lines at all, cause this would really lead

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > This however leads to irrecoverable data corruption, as the partial > quoting of so called From_ lines cannot be undone anymore. > An easy solution for that dilemma is known for years, namely the other > mbox formats (either mboxrd, mboxcl or m

Re: the right bug severity in case of data corruption

* Christoph Anton Mitterer [121124 17:42]: > I've recently reported several bugs against MUAs and mail tools, that > employ the mboxo (note the trailing "o") format to either store or > import mails. > So,... bringing this up here at d-d, as I think it would be good for > Debian to have a well th