Re: bug in attachment handling

diff --git a/14/c3b0b9a2de424d57008a2376033f4319fb38ee b/14/c3b0b9a2de424d57008a2376033f4319fb38ee
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..b659761
--- /dev/null
+++ b/14/c3b0b9a2de424d57008a2376033f4319fb38ee
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>\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 2369C431FC0\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:16:50 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -1.098\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+       tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,\r
+       NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 os4WGzhm1RbQ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:16:44 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])\r
+       (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))\r
+       (No client certificate requested)\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07A92431FBF\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:16:44 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])\r
+       by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)\r
+       (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+       id 1V4BfB-0007Z5-E3; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:16:42 +0100\r
+Received: from 93-97-24-31.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.24.31] helo=localhost)\r
+       by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.71)\r
+       (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+       id 1V4BfB-0000QB-38; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:16:37 +0100\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: bug in attachment handling\r
+In-Reply-To: <87ppu0t7yf.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+References: <87ppu0t7yf.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.15.2+192~g8222af3 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.2.1\r
+       (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:16:36 +0100\r
+Message-ID: <87li4om623.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain\r
+X-Sender-Host-Address: 93.97.24.31\r
+X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record.  :)\r
+X-QM-Body-MD5: ebe7b1d742724dfbe7e6d8e51dc3a129 (of first 20000 bytes)\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Score: 0.0\r
+X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: /\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to\r
+       determine if it is\r
+       spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.\r
+       This message scored 0.0 points. Summary of the scoring: \r
+       * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail\r
+       provider *      (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)\r
+       *  0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list\r
+X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean\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: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:16:50 -0000\r
+\r
+\r
+Hi\r
+On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com> wrote:\r
+> Hi\r
+>\r
+> I have been seeing a bug in attachment handling in recent notmuch. If a\r
+> pdf part is sent as application/octet-stream then notmuch says\r
+> [[file.pdf: application/octet-stream (as application/pdf) ] but when\r
+> viewing it with . v or the default button action (when customised to\r
+> view) it treats it as application/octet-stream.\r
+>\r
+> I think this is a regression but haven't checked yet: it probably has a\r
+> simple fix so we may want to fix it before 0.16 (users may be grumpy\r
+> about the key binding changes etc as it is!)\r
+>\r
+> I attach a pdf with this message (just a mozilla print-to-file of the\r
+> notmuch webpage) which should demonstrate the problem.\r
+\r
+I have now checked that it is a regression: 0.15 is fine and git bisect\r
+gives the first bad commit as 1546387d723ec47cd281f3c2bf6da2fddf18c045.\r
+\r
+The problem comes because we used to store the content-type with the\r
+button: it was called content-type but in the function\r
+notmuch-show-insert-part-header this was the "calculated content-type"\r
+(with declared-type being the originally declared type).\r
+\r
+Elsewhere though content-type is used for the original declared-type\r
+including where the version post 1546 above picks it up (in\r
+notmuch-show-current-part-handle).\r
+\r
+So somehow we need to get the calculated content-type into that\r
+function. I am not sure what the cleanest way  to do that is so will\r
+just post this for now.\r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r
+\r