From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>,
	notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: Parsing regression with gmime-2.6?
In-Reply-To: <87wr6xmlml.fsf@zancas.localnet>
References: <87d38w2e7h.fsf@zancas.localnet>
	<1331058417-13776-1-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu>
	<87wr6xmlml.fsf@zancas.localnet>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:30:21 -0500
Message-ID: <87vcme3kf6.fsf@pip.fifthhorseman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:04:50 -0400, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
> There seems to be something weird going on with gmime-2.6; maybe we
> didn't catch some api change?=20

This does seem to be a regression in gmime 2.6.  I've reported the bug
upstream, along with a simplified (non-notmuch) demonstration:

 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D671680

We'll see what gmime's upstream has to say about it.

As a devil's advocate, i could argue that a message in a maildir that
starts with a "From " line isn't a proper e-mail message in the first
place, and therefore gmime 2.6 is being more rigorously correct about
what it accepts.  In particular, if a user were to place a multi-message
mbox file in their notmuch message store, i think that notmuch linked
against 2.4 would happily index only the first message of it, and the
rest of the message would be "hidden", whereas gmime 2.6 allows us to
detect these failures and avoid indexing them directly.

That said, i understand that this is probably not an entirely rare
situation, and i lean toward the idea that gmime 2.4's behavior was
actually the Right Thing.  Also, I haven't been able to find any
explicit documentation to indicate that the behavior change was
a deliberate one.

I'm happy to relay any helpful or constructive suggestions to the gmime
upstream ticket, if folks don't want to deal with bugzilla directly.

        --dkg

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=UMFt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--