1 Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19573429E3E
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 02:51:51 -0800 (PST)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
\r
13 FREEMAIL_REPLY=2.499, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3]
\r
15 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
16 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
17 with ESMTP id TiYClRARKS1u for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
18 Fri, 6 Jan 2012 02:51:50 -0800 (PST)
\r
19 Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])
\r
20 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
\r
21 (No client certificate requested)
\r
22 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80055429E33
\r
23 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 02:51:50 -0800 (PST)
\r
24 Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])
\r
25 by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
\r
26 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
27 id 1Rj7Om-0002S4-Ve; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:51:49 +0000
\r
28 Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223]
\r
30 by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69)
\r
31 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
32 id 1Rj7Om-0007Zp-LT; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:51:48 +0000
\r
33 From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
\r
34 To: David Edmondson <dme@dme.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
35 Subject: Re: Exporting mime email
\r
36 In-Reply-To: <cuny5tl2jyo.fsf@hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net>
\r
37 References: <87hb09y8p8.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
38 <cunehvd44a8.fsf@hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net>
\r
39 <87k455p1mj.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
40 <cuny5tl2jyo.fsf@hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net>
\r
41 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+183~g99cd7be (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
\r
43 Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:51:47 +0000
\r
44 Message-ID: <87y5tl3xz0.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
46 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
\r
47 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
\r
48 X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223
\r
49 X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :)
\r
50 X-QM-Body-MD5: 510db28f07fa4cfde55f623f815b464e (of first 20000 bytes)
\r
51 X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.2
\r
52 X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: -
\r
53 X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to
\r
55 spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.
\r
56 This message scored -1.2 points.
\r
57 Summary of the scoring:
\r
58 * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
\r
60 * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org]
\r
61 * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
\r
62 provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)
\r
63 * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
\r
65 * 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails
\r
66 * 0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
\r
67 X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean
\r
68 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
69 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
71 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
72 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
73 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
74 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
75 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
76 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
77 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
78 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
79 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
80 X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:51:51 -0000
\r
85 > Presumably something is converting it from 8bit to base64 along the
\r
88 If it makes a difference my setup is gmail->offlineimap->notmuch
\r
90 > I scouted around for other messages that include =C2=A9 (which is what I
\r
91 > presume causes the encoding), but the ones I have are all still 8bit.
\r
93 A different example which shows the same problem (for me) is
\r
94 id:"m2fwg1uapw.fsf@gmail.com"
\r