Ken wrote:
> And dang, coming up with a test for the url external-body type is going
> to be a pain.
Uh, yeah. I fixed it and now valgrind doesn't report any problems.
> David, do you recall why the clang static analyzer was complaining about
> that? Also, if you look in all the callers of ope
>More precisely, nmh-1.6+dev_20150118 dumps core. It's something that David
>Levine made for me. (As I recall, it was so I could use the -retainsequences
>argument to refile.) It's dated Jan 20 2015, but the 1.6 release is dated
>Jun 16 2014.
Alright, THAT makes sense. The result of the bisect sh
Ken Hornstein writes:
>Are you sure 1.6 core dumps on it? It sure doesn't for me, but the 1.7
>release candidates do.
>
More precisely, nmh-1.6+dev_20150118 dumps core. It's something that David
Levine made for me. (As I recall, it was so I could use the -retainsequences
argument to refile.) It'
>#1 0x00404427 in openExternal (ct=0x929240,
>cb=, ce=0x929f40, file=0x7ffd7a9c8a80,
>fd=0x7ffd7a9c49fc) at uip/mhparse.c:2342
Alright, a bisection traces this down to commit 337b4e616e8f53ba,
specifically this line added to uipmhparse.c in openExternal():
*fd = fileno (ce->c
>#1 0x00404427 in openExternal (ct=0x929240,
>cb=, ce=0x929f40, file=0x7ffd7a9c8a80,
>fd=0x7ffd7a9c49fc) at uip/mhparse.c:2342
Are you sure 1.6 core dumps on it? It sure doesn't for me, but the 1.7
release candidates do.
--Ken
___
Nmh
>Confirmed, they all have ^M. Note that I'm probably abusing mhfixmsg, as
>I am trying to run it on my server at reception time, before storing the
>mail in IMAP. I'll just keep it to my own account for now, removing \r
>before and adding \r after processing. :/
Ah, okay, THAT makes more sense. I
Den 18. aug. 2017 19:19, skrev Ken Hornstein:
>>> 1) What is happening to that email when you run mhfixmsg on it?
>>
>> The mail in question (i.e. with ^M at end of every line, both headers
>> and body) ends up with nothing but a single instance of the mime
>> boundary in the body of the mail. i.
Ken Hornstein writes:
>Obviously I didn't encounter that, and I actually use that feature and I
>tested it on that message. So a backtrace on the core dump sure would
>be useful.
It's been like 20 years since I used C much. But I think that this
is what you might want?
GNU gdb (GDB) Red Hat En
>Doing 'mhstore', for the message to which I replying, dumps core.
Man, Norm, I wish your replcomps would use the Reply-to header, but anyway ...
>mhlist yields:
>
>msg part type/subtype size description
> 38 multipart/mixed 1315
> 1 text/plain
n...@dad.org writes:
>Doing 'mhstore', for the message to which I replying, dumps core.
>mhlist yields:
>
>msg part type/subtype size description
>38 multipart/mixed 1315
>1 text/plain 595
>2 message/external-body 161
>application/octet-str
Doing 'mhstore', for the message to which I replying, dumps core.
mhlist yields:
msg part type/subtype size description
38 multipart/mixed 1315
1 text/plain 595
2 message/external-body 161
application/octet-stream
>It also fixed the scan bug that I had earlier reported. It did so, at least in
>my environment, by displaying a question mark in place of the strange Unicode
>character. nmh 1.6 displayed the actual character, though it messed up the
>spacing. Either approach is fine with me. I prefer the 1.7 appr
Hi Ken,
> Huh, the HEADERS have ^M on them?
I've tried slapping CR at various places on the email that was
originally attached and can't get mhfixmsg to go wrong. The original
that has the problem would be handy to find the issue and come up with a
minimum test case if it is a nmh bug. And it p
Ken Hornstein writes:
>--- =_aa0
>
>This release fixes a few bugs in the format engine and contains some
>documentation improvements.
It also fixed the scan bug that I had earlier reported. It did so, at least in
my environment, by displaying a question mark in place of the strange Un
>> 1) What is happening to that email when you run mhfixmsg on it?
>
>The mail in question (i.e. with ^M at end of every line, both headers
>and body) ends up with nothing but a single instance of the mime
>boundary in the body of the mail. i.e
>
>HEAD
>
>MIME-BOUNDARY
Huh, the HEADERS have ^M
Den 18. aug. 2017 17:53, skrev Ken Hornstein:
> You know, I've only been vaguely following this, but I tried to go back
> and I am confused now. Two dumb questions:
>
> 1) What is happening to that email when you run mhfixmsg on it?
The mail in question (i.e. with ^M at end of every line, both
You know, I've only been vaguely following this, but I tried to go back
and I am confused now. Two dumb questions:
1) What is happening to that email when you run mhfixmsg on it?
2) What do you want to happen?
--Ken
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-wo
Hi Håkon,
> Which is smaller. Update: You pointed out the carriage returns. Can
> you send the problem email as a .tar.gz or something that will leave
> everything alone.
It would still be useful to have that to reproduce the mhfixmsg problem
here.
> > > 11.tar: unknown suffix -- unchanged
>
Den 18. aug. 2017 16:11, skrev Ralph Corderoy:
> Hi Håkon,
>
>> $ mhlist -version
>> mhlist -- nmh-1.7-RC2 built 2017-08-18 11:32:04 + on garbo
>> $ mhlist 1
>> mhlist: bogus multipart content in message 1
>> msg part type/subtype size description
>>1 multipart/mixed
Den 18. aug. 2017 15:45, skrev David Levine:
> Does the -nocrlflinebreaks switch to mhfixmsg help?
>
No difference, already tried both -nocrlflinebreaks and -crlflinebreaks
> David
>
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.
Hi Håkon,
> $ mhlist -version
> mhlist -- nmh-1.7-RC2 built 2017-08-18 11:32:04 + on garbo
> $ mhlist 1
> mhlist: bogus multipart content in message 1
> msg part type/subtype size description
>1 multipart/mixed32K
And yet I got
> > $ mhlist -file 9707
Does the -nocrlflinebreaks switch to mhfixmsg help?
David
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Den 18. aug. 2017 13:49, skrev Håkon Alstadheim:
>
>
> Den 18. aug. 2017 13:04, skrev Ralph Corderoy:
>>
>>
>> Hi Håkon,
>>
>>> Trying to run mhfixmsg on it just removes the entire body of the mail.
>>
>> Can you give a command that fails? It seems OK here.
> I'm running debian jessie which has
Den 18. aug. 2017 13:04, skrev Ralph Corderoy:
>
>
> Hi Håkon,
>
>> Trying to run mhfixmsg on it just removes the entire body of the mail.
>
> Can you give a command that fails? It seems OK here.
I'm running debian jessie which has 1.6 as package. Compiled but not
installed 1.7 from source.
Hi Håkon,
> Trying to run mhfixmsg on it just removes the entire body of the mail.
Can you give a command that fails? It seems OK here.
$ mhfixmsg -version
mhfixmsg -- nmh-1.7-RC2 1.7-RC2-1-g42b75672 built 2017-08-18 06:44:22 +
on orac
$ scan -file 9707.2.email -format '%{messa
Hi all, I'd really like to keep base64 to a bare minimum in my
mail-store, but then along comes monstrosities like the attached. Trying
to run mhfixmsg on it just removes the entire body of the mail.
I just tried running the nmh-1.7-RC2 version, but result is same.
I'm not holding my breath, but
26 matches
Mail list logo
