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 06DED431FBD
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:24:12 -0800 (PST)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
\r
13 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 1PQDW47fWIgA for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
17 Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:24:06 -0800 (PST)
\r
18 X-Greylist: delayed 6821 seconds by postgrey-1.32 at olra;
\r
19 Tue, 04 Feb 2014 11:24:06 PST
\r
20 Received: from mail1.qmul.ac.uk (mail1.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.7])
\r
21 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
\r
22 (No client certificate requested)
\r
23 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD629431FBC
\r
24 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:24:06 -0800 (PST)
\r
25 Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])
\r
26 by mail1.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
\r
27 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
28 id 1WAjp6-0000xu-Mi; Tue, 04 Feb 2014 17:30:13 +0000
\r
29 Received: from 93-97-24-31.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.24.31] helo=localhost)
\r
30 by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.71)
\r
31 (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)
\r
32 id 1WAjp6-0002Rd-Hj; Tue, 04 Feb 2014 17:30:12 +0000
\r
33 From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>
\r
34 To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>,
\r
35 notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
36 Subject: Re: sanitization of args notmuch-cli in notmuch-emacs
\r
37 In-Reply-To: <87mwi7uip0.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
\r
38 References: <87wqhcxb5j.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
\r
39 <m2mwi8q6gh.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
\r
40 <87mwi7uip0.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca>
\r
41 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.15.2+484~gfb59956 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1
\r
42 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
\r
43 Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 17:30:11 +0000
\r
44 Message-ID: <87ppn2pyzg.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>
\r
46 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
\r
47 X-Sender-Host-Address: 93.97.24.31
\r
48 X-QM-Geographic: According to ripencc,
\r
49 this message was delivered by a machine in Britain (UK) (GB).
\r
50 X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :)
\r
51 X-QM-Body-MD5: e4ef1115e1cf06d1a2b618d36055730c (of first 20000 bytes)
\r
52 X-SpamAssassin-Score: 0.0
\r
53 X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: /
\r
54 X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to
\r
56 spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.
\r
57 This message scored 0.0 points. Summary of the scoring:
\r
58 * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
\r
59 provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)
\r
60 * 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
\r
61 X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean
\r
62 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
63 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
65 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
66 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
67 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
68 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
69 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
70 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
71 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
72 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
73 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
74 X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:24:12 -0000
\r
78 On Tue, 04 Feb 2014, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
\r
79 > Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> writes:
\r
82 >> Maybe the cli should be fixed ? (and/or make emacs MUA resilient to
\r
83 >> this kind of result)
\r
86 > Would it make any sense to output errors in structured format? I guess
\r
87 > the downside is it would be harder for a human user to read.
\r
90 If we want to do something like this would something like
\r
91 --structured-errors be possible?
\r