Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 12:59:39 -0400
From: Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>
To: Justus Winter <4winter@informatik.uni-hamburg.de>
Subject: Re: header continuation issue in notmuch frontend/alot/pythons email
	module
Message-ID: <20130623165938.GA2214@mit.edu>
References: <20130623131145.2526.439@thinkbox.jade-hamburg.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130623131145.2526.439@thinkbox.jade-hamburg.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: notmuch mailing list <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Precedence: list

Quoth Justus Winter on Jun 23 at  3:11 pm:
> Hi,
> 
> I recently had a problem replying to a mail written by Thomas Schwinge
> using an oldish notmuch. Not sure if it has been fixed in more recent
> versions, but I think notmuch could improve uppon its header
> generation (see below). Problematic part of the mail:
> 
> ~~~ snip ~~~
> [...]
> To: someone@example.org, "line
>  break" <linebreak@example.org>, someoneelse@example.org
> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.9-101-g81dad07 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu)
> [...]
> ~~~ snap ~~~
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822#section-2.2.3 says:
> 
>    Note: Though structured field bodies are defined in such a way that
>    folding can take place between many of the lexical tokens (and even
>    within some of the lexical tokens), folding SHOULD be limited to
>    placing the CRLF at higher-level syntactic breaks.  For instance, if
>    a field body is defined as comma-separated values, it is recommended
>    that folding occur after the comma separating the structured items in
>    preference to other places where the field could be folded, even if
>    it is allowed elsewhere.
> 
> So notmuch "rfc-SHOULD" place the newlines after the comma.
> 
> The rfc goes on:
> 
>    The process of moving from this folded multiple-line representation
>    of a header field to its single line representation is called
>    "unfolding". Unfolding is accomplished by simply removing any CRLF
>    that is immediately followed by WSP.  Each header field should be
>    treated in its unfolded form for further syntactic and semantic
>    evaluation.
> 
> My interpretation is that unfolding simply removes any linebreaks
> first, so the value does not contain any newlines. But pythons email
> module discriminates quoted and unquoted parts of the value:
> 
> ~~~ snip ~~~
> from __future__ import print_function
> import email
> from email.utils import getaddresses
> 
> m = email.message_from_string('''To: "line
>  break" <linebreak@example.org>, line
>  break <linebreak@example.org>''')
> print("m['To'] = ", m['To'])
> print("getaddresses(m.get_all('To')) = ", getaddresses(m.get_all('To')))
> ~~~ snap ~~~
> 
> % python3 test.py
> m['To'] =  "line
>  break" <linebreak@example.org>, line
>  break <linebreak@example.org>
> getaddresses(m.get_all('To')) =  [('line\n break', 'linebreak@example.org'), ('line break', 'linebreak@example.org')]
> 
> I believe that is what's preventing me from replying to the message
> using alot without sanitizing the To header first. Not really sure who
> is wrong or right here... any thoughts?

There are at least two bugs here.  Regardless of what we RFC-should
do, that folding *is* permitted by RFC2822, since quoted
strings can contain folding whitespace:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822#section-3.2.5

For completeness, the full derivation for this "To" header is:

to              =       "To:" address-list CRLF
address-list    =       (address *("," address)) / obs-addr-list
address         =       mailbox / group
mailbox         =       name-addr / addr-spec
name-addr       =       [display-name] angle-addr
display-name    =       phrase
phrase          =       1*word / obs-phrase
word            =       atom / quoted-string
quoted-string   =       [CFWS]
                        DQUOTE *([FWS] qcontent) [FWS] DQUOTE
                        [CFWS]

Do you happen to know how the strangely folded "to" header was
produced for this message?  In notmuch-emacs, a user can put whatever
they want in a message-mode buffer's headers and mm will dutifully
pass it on to their MTA.  We could validate it, but that's a slippery
slope and I would hope that the MTA itself is validating it (and
probably more thoroughly than we could).

That said, the first bug here is in Python.  As I mentioned above,
foldable whitespace is allowed in quoted strings.  In fact, though the
standard is rather long-winded about whitespace, if you dig into the
grammar, you'll find that *all whitespace can be folded* (except in
the obsolete grammar, which allowed whitespace between the header name
and the colon, which obviously can't be folded).  I'm not sure what
Python is doing, but I bet it's going to a lot of effort to
mis-implement something very simple.

There also appears to be a bug in the notmuch CLI's reply command
where it omits addresses that were folded in the original message.  I
don't know if alot uses the CLI's reply command, so this may or may
not be related to your specific issue.  I haven't dug into this yet,
other than to confirm that it's the CLI's fault and not
notmuch-emacs's.

> Justus