1 Return-Path: <albin.stjerna@gmail.com>
\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 5096A431FAF
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:31:01 -0800 (PST)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
\r
13 FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled
\r
14 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
15 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
16 with ESMTP id Z5Qy4Fogy+V6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
17 Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:31:01 -0800 (PST)
\r
18 Received: from mail-lb0-f173.google.com (mail-lb0-f173.google.com
\r
19 [209.85.217.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
\r
20 (No client certificate requested)
\r
21 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2FC3431FAE
\r
22 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:31:00 -0800 (PST)
\r
23 Received: by mail-lb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id gf7so3981461lbb.18
\r
24 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:30:58 -0800 (PST)
\r
25 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
\r
26 h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent
\r
27 :date:message-id:mime-version:content-type;
\r
28 bh=CfS5BlGmajnTsLmaDY4ZpKVZ3ilp1VXi24dVRvEg+Zs=;
\r
29 b=qwQuBGDYinlMqh+FI5mXh890Xni0NyS8EWnEer5KfEDJI+og3Sr1nWEVwoasZjC6fH
\r
30 35j21A5l+RL5QhulrMs1d+Mcxv4NmDvxakbgdr0YMK9VYYSXM4ybX2f+Kwr3VZijvAy0
\r
31 rD+ZYz1meRHeD5Z2ci8w6fmAquTUpF53L+n+VV4n8vehKXO+IDLeq1vSBVjOmZL9CIuk
\r
32 wdyB5MopJCzr6Gl/6abgyyzXWi6pscYcIcN14DfBrlcTOPdS1aJAKD/WeVmU3FaA23Yc
\r
33 XcHrPYb7cqb66TtPe5wr/m4gfinW47IoQZC/kgPtWYXfBNtZIvtUxfseeLnke6zJ6fCD
\r
35 X-Received: by 10.152.133.130 with SMTP id pc2mr9398826lab.51.1360485057760;
\r
36 Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:30:57 -0800 (PST)
\r
37 Received: from hecate (nl110-96-173.student.uu.se. [130.242.96.173])
\r
38 by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ft8sm19710784lab.9.2013.02.10.00.30.55
\r
39 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
\r
40 Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:30:56 -0800 (PST)
\r
41 From: Albin Stjerna <albin.stjerna@gmail.com>
\r
42 To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
43 Subject: Re: Bug: problem decoding some non-ascii characters in subjects
\r
44 In-Reply-To: <87mwvd6bst.fsf@nikula.org>
\r
45 References: <87txpnds0k.fsf@hecate.student.uu.se> <8738x7kq44.fsf@nikula.org>
\r
46 <87pq09eu41.fsf@hecate.student.uu.se> <87mwvd6bst.fsf@nikula.org>
\r
47 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.14+243~g18d79d1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.50.1
\r
48 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
\r
49 Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:30:52 +0100
\r
50 Message-ID: <87liawefk3.fsf@hecate.student.uu.se>
\r
52 Content-Type: text/plain
\r
53 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
54 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
56 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
57 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
58 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
59 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
60 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
61 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
62 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
63 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
64 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
65 X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:31:01 -0000
\r
69 > Is that entirely on one line in the original message file? If not, where
\r
70 > exactly is it split?
\r
74 > Either way, at a glance, it seems like the encoding is malformed. I
\r
75 > think the encoded-word ("=?" charset "?" encoding "?" encoded-text "?=")
\r
76 > should be separated by space to make it an atom. [RFC 2047, RFC 2822].
\r
78 > If you manually move the leading 'f' after the "?Q?" bit, it works as
\r
79 > expected. It looks like the bug is in the sender's user agent.
\r
81 Hm. So I should report this to Thunderbird? I tried searching through
\r
82 their bug reports but didn't find anything.
\r
84 I didn't think it was a bug, since Gmail rendered it just fine.
\r