Re: release-candidate/0.6

diff --git a/68/cef6f11fdf997afc1c2ba1e76223e234d6688c b/68/cef6f11fdf997afc1c2ba1e76223e234d6688c
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..d946a58
--- /dev/null
+++ b/68/cef6f11fdf997afc1c2ba1e76223e234d6688c
@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+Return-Path: <jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC8C429E22\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun,  8 May 2011 17:57:56 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -2.29\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+       tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+       by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+       with ESMTP id wWGh36mSLDrW for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Sun,  8 May 2011 17:57:56 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu (outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu\r
+       [131.215.239.19])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D5C431FB5\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun,  8 May 2011 17:57:56 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from earth-doxen.imss.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by earth-doxen-postvirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97DB766E02E3;\r
+       Sun,  8 May 2011 17:57:54 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Spam-Scanned: at Caltech-IMSS on earth-doxen by amavisd-new\r
+Received: from servo.finestructure.net (cpe-98-149-172-122.socal.res.rr.com\r
+       [98.149.172.122]) (Authenticated sender: jrollins)\r
+       by earth-doxen-submit (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7498866E0122;\r
+       Sun,  8 May 2011 17:57:51 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: by servo.finestructure.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)\r
+       id E45D2303; Sun,  8 May 2011 17:57:51 -0700 (PDT)\r
+From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
+To: James Vasile <james@hackervisions.org>,\r
+       Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+Subject: Re: release-candidate/0.6\r
+In-Reply-To: <87bozfpemp.fsf@softwarefreedom.org>\r
+References: <8762pn7gth.fsf@servo.factory.finestructure.net>\r
+       <87bozfpemp.fsf@softwarefreedom.org>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.6 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1\r
+       (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 17:57:48 -0700\r
+Message-ID: <87k4e0g06r.fsf@servo.factory.finestructure.net>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";\r
+       micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+       <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 00:57:56 -0000\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+\r
+On Fri, 06 May 2011 19:56:30 -0400, James Vasile <james@hackervisions.org> wrote:\r
+> I sent two patches to the list on March 16.  They were a bug fix to\r
+> allow notmuch to correctly handle some poorly formatted email.  Nobody\r
+> ever replied, but I'd like to see the bug fixed nonetheless, as it\r
+> results in unreadable mail.  Since I've actually seen such mail in the\r
+> wild, I'd like to see Notmuch handle it.\r
+\r
+Hey, James.  Florian Friesdorf sent in a patch to sanitize the output of\r
+notmuch search, which I think is the issue that you're patches were also\r
+dealing with.  Florian's patch has be pushed to my\r
+release-candidate/0.6.  Can you see if your issue is fixed there?  If\r
+not maybe you could try submitting a new patch that would apply to the\r
+release-candidate/0.6 head.\r
+\r
+Thanks.\r
+\r
+jamie.\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+Content-Type: application/pgp-signature\r
+\r
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)\r
+\r
+iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJNxzwNAAoJEO00zqvie6q8gXgP/jVNeygxTYUA0fayMfX593Pu\r
+C0AdBAlNJ6uaFEVAyzlObjh+L7gLhdAOOSgM+Uw7tRV8YEUIjRR1UTPVxT2n76jh\r
+3ruMmt7w1/mLKZRfQQOhGS65mM04XEBDekQmDvOlVdPF/d5sMNZrKSJNcwMxiqwG\r
+LOXZGj9RX1yktAQE5v+jMSGbKyyYt8X4TPKU17a7/r9r3hhYrKuPK+eszItescW+\r
+zUVxrnslyRd6728VYWe8J+4rGd4wbyUoqi8yqTWZzFj8xIGMxeuQwBw+/3pT96lm\r
+LkZ1HN6sJ0Z4hythRVk7iKYbGoNyrNbdZB0DOw39cTpsHpSs7k5HyP+li+Uky77p\r
+eA5ZKL8ev4KV6Fy+sQGp//9XRc3sLeBU8nUCQQmQvfHeJiHUTphMtYdGIuhFOYar\r
+tCBZyiYb3DmxKNmoSE1lHY0xfCP0kbRQMGEAbtLu68ZW97wqRgyvK/XrCrHTSu1P\r
+pl7NbirekcmenV3eomOI9L1wglUWkM2JreqEtbnR1JHwDUkcOOsl469ceQuHtLCA\r
+noObdT7J6ylrpCh513Lf6bATx1cbq4ib/mhGXCM/wb5AQ/+GUihiQeivkbmURJDA\r
+mnlAbMf4bGwYPNX5nbRnUtziBajmakYn80CkoxCPZ8K25ZUdnIOOJZGySUKr3Q3i\r
+rdW2Y6MNo7sOYq0r/igi\r
+=+HrJ\r
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+--=-=-=--\r