--- /dev/null
+Return-Path: <jani@nikula.org>\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 D7467431FBC\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:41:21 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -0.7\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+ tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 CVWGnYYK4NWU for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:41:19 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from mail-la0-f41.google.com (mail-la0-f41.google.com\r
+ [209.85.215.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))\r
+ (No client certificate requested)\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF529431FAF\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:41:18 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id fo12so2188940lab.28\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:41:16 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;\r
+ d=google.com; s=20120113;\r
+ h=x-received:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date\r
+ :message-id:mime-version:content-type:x-gm-message-state;\r
+ bh=k9EuZu6+hVJPIbkf59XdmyV9Y+qxB8aX3oOJkHI8feQ=;\r
+ b=VWH/+NmnDNbbC/KNLHlxOW2KRyxqsbQyDuZFiQSu7AZFXF0/ItApTtMFNw/C3ZpoBd\r
+ bkoutZiQB6y+a5FXJnfCUIHi6nzvZJBQaYZtvoOewEwtS20ssMgNA8pLYmoQr7JuVPOy\r
+ j8mjrcOpBb3tauD19VTYAKM78ceaN2lfG4Gf7clmgO7RazGpyZD2kCdoOd2sTr+IwdPA\r
+ Bfolh7SpgyGycz/heqCn8CEw2/RQCJT5vv+9Gy0FlwMCTLThxXWMJ1WRRbwOIt3iRGuV\r
+ 9b8fqUfJvnNwM+i4SZ3uj489jAS7W6WsAAeTUqZK/948l1x9VoPIVuZraK5dv+/ltAiI\r
+ H2JQ==\r
+X-Received: by 10.112.13.200 with SMTP id j8mr4057894lbc.68.1362080475852;\r
+ Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:41:15 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw4-50df51-27.dhcp.inet.fi.\r
+ [80.223.81.27])\r
+ by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fm8sm3283414lbb.17.2013.02.28.11.41.13\r
+ (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);\r
+ Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:41:14 -0800 (PST)\r
+From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>\r
+To: Aaron Ecay <aaronecay@gmail.com>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] lib/database.cc: change how the parent of a message\r
+ is calculated\r
+In-Reply-To: <1361836225-17279-1-git-send-email-aaronecay@gmail.com>\r
+References: <1361836225-17279-1-git-send-email-aaronecay@gmail.com>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.15.2+33~g98253a3 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.2.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:41:16 +0200\r
+Message-ID: <87621cteeb.fsf@nikula.org>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain\r
+X-Gm-Message-State:\r
+ ALoCoQmRb+br0tqWNRdxc1RyXji58iziwxTGZotvTWLSVA5AvRzDUu7LRxiZyORYP7S9dIcpuQDM\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: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:41:22 -0000\r
+\r
+\r
+Hi Aaron -\r
+\r
+On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Aaron Ecay <aaronecay@gmail.com> wrote:\r
+> Presently, the code which finds the parent of a message as it is being\r
+> added to the database assumes that the first Message-ID-like substring\r
+> of the In-Reply-To header is the parent Message ID. Some mail clients,\r
+> however, put stuff other than the Message-ID of the parent in the\r
+> In-Reply-To header, such as the email address of the sender of the\r
+> parent. This can fool notmuch.\r
+\r
+I think the background is that RFC 822 defines In-Reply-To (and\r
+References too for that matter) as *(phrase / msg-id), while RFC 2822\r
+defines them as 1*msg-id. I'd like something about RFC 822 being\r
+mentioned in the commit message.\r
+\r
+The problem in the gmane message you link to in\r
+id:87liaa3luc.fsf@gmail.com is likely related to the FAQ item 05.26 "How\r
+do I fix a bogus In-Reply-To or missing References field?" in the MH FAQ\r
+http://www.newt.com/faq/mh.html.\r
+\r
+> The updated algorithm prefers the last Message ID in the References\r
+> header. The References header lists messages oldest-first, so the last\r
+> Message ID is the parent (RFC2822, p. 24). The References header is\r
+> also less likely to be in a non-standard\r
+> syntax (http://cr.yp.to/immhf/thread.html,\r
+> http://www.jwz.org/doc/threading.html). In case the References header\r
+> is not to be found, fall back to the old behavior.\r
+> ---\r
+>\r
+> I especially notice this problem on public mailing lists, where\r
+> certain people's messages always cause an "out-dent" of the threading,\r
+> instead of being nested under whichever message they are replies to.\r
+>\r
+> Technically, putting non-Message-ID crud in the In-Reply-To field is a\r
+> violation of RFC2822, but it appears that in practice the References\r
+> header is respected more often than the In-Reply-To one.\r
+>\r
+> lib/database.cc | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------\r
+> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)\r
+>\r
+> diff --git a/lib/database.cc b/lib/database.cc\r
+> index 91d4329..cbf33ae 100644\r
+> --- a/lib/database.cc\r
+> +++ b/lib/database.cc\r
+> @@ -501,8 +501,10 @@ _parse_message_id (void *ctx, const char *message_id, const char **next)\r
+> * 'message_id' in the result (to avoid mass confusion when a single\r
+> * message references itself cyclically---and yes, mail messages are\r
+> * not infrequent in the wild that do this---don't ask me why).\r
+> + *\r
+> + * Return the last reference parsed.\r
+> */\r
+> -static void\r
+> +static char *\r
+> parse_references (void *ctx,\r
+> const char *message_id,\r
+> GHashTable *hash,\r
+> @@ -511,7 +513,7 @@ parse_references (void *ctx,\r
+> char *ref;\r
+>\r
+> if (refs == NULL || *refs == '\0')\r
+> - return;\r
+> + return NULL;\r
+>\r
+> while (*refs) {\r
+> ref = _parse_message_id (ctx, refs, &refs);\r
+> @@ -519,6 +521,8 @@ parse_references (void *ctx,\r
+> if (ref && strcmp (ref, message_id))\r
+> g_hash_table_insert (hash, ref, NULL);\r
+> }\r
+> +\r
+> + return ref;\r
+\r
+As the comment for the function says, we explicitly avoid including\r
+self-references. I think I'd err on the safe side and return NULL if the\r
+last ref equals message-id.\r
+\r
+> }\r
+>\r
+> notmuch_status_t\r
+> @@ -1365,7 +1369,7 @@ _notmuch_database_generate_doc_id (notmuch_database_t *notmuch)\r
+> notmuch->last_doc_id++;\r
+>\r
+> if (notmuch->last_doc_id == 0)\r
+> - INTERNAL_ERROR ("Xapian document IDs are exhausted.\n");\r
+> + INTERNAL_ERROR ("Xapian document IDs are exhausted.\n");\r
+\r
+I don't know how you got this non-change hunk here, but please remove\r
+it. :)\r
+\r
+>\r
+> return notmuch->last_doc_id;\r
+> }\r
+> @@ -1509,7 +1513,7 @@ _notmuch_database_link_message_to_parents (notmuch_database_t *notmuch,\r
+> const char **thread_id)\r
+> {\r
+> GHashTable *parents = NULL;\r
+> - const char *refs, *in_reply_to, *in_reply_to_message_id;\r
+> + const char *refs, *in_reply_to, *in_reply_to_message_id, *last_ref_message_id;\r
+> GList *l, *keys = NULL;\r
+> notmuch_status_t ret = NOTMUCH_STATUS_SUCCESS;\r
+>\r
+> @@ -1517,21 +1521,31 @@ _notmuch_database_link_message_to_parents (notmuch_database_t *notmuch,\r
+> _my_talloc_free_for_g_hash, NULL);\r
+>\r
+> refs = notmuch_message_file_get_header (message_file, "references");\r
+> - parse_references (message, notmuch_message_get_message_id (message),\r
+> - parents, refs);\r
+> + last_ref_message_id = parse_references (message,\r
+> + notmuch_message_get_message_id (message),\r
+> + parents, refs);\r
+>\r
+> in_reply_to = notmuch_message_file_get_header (message_file, "in-reply-to");\r
+> parse_references (message, notmuch_message_get_message_id (message),\r
+> parents, in_reply_to);\r
+>\r
+> - /* Carefully avoid adding any self-referential in-reply-to term. */\r
+> in_reply_to_message_id = _parse_message_id (message, in_reply_to, NULL);\r
+\r
+I wonder if you should reuse your parse_references() change here, so\r
+you'd set in_reply_to_message_id to the last message-id in\r
+In-Reply-To. This might tackle some of the problematic cases directly,\r
+but should still be all right per RFC 2822. I didn't verify how the\r
+parser handles an RFC 2822 violating free form header though.\r
+\r
+> + /* If the parent message ID from the Reply-To and References\r
+> + * headers are different, use the References one. This is because\r
+> + * the Reply-To header is more likely to be in an non-standard\r
+> + * format. */\r
+> + if (in_reply_to_message_id &&\r
+> + last_ref_message_id &&\r
+> + strcmp (last_ref_message_id, in_reply_to_message_id)) {\r
+> + in_reply_to_message_id = last_ref_message_id;\r
+> + }\r
+\r
+I suggest adding an else if branch (or revamp the above if condition) to\r
+tackle the missing In-Reply-To header:\r
+\r
+ else if (!in_reply_to_message_id && last_ref_message_id) {\r
+ in_reply_to_message_id = last_ref_message_id;\r
+ }\r
+\r
+> + /* Carefully avoid adding any self-referential in-reply-to term. */\r
+> if (in_reply_to_message_id &&\r
+> strcmp (in_reply_to_message_id,\r
+> notmuch_message_get_message_id (message)))\r
+\r
+If you change parse_references() to be careful about never returning a\r
+self-reference, and set in_reply_to_message_id from there, I think you\r
+can drop the strcmp here. And move the comment to an appropriate place.\r
+\r
+Thanks for the patch, I think we should do this. But this is an area\r
+where I think we need to be careful, so another reviewer wouldn't\r
+harm. Some tests for this would be good too, obviously.\r
+\r
+\r
+BR,\r
+Jani.\r
+\r
+> {\r
+> _notmuch_message_add_term (message, "replyto",\r
+> - _parse_message_id (message, in_reply_to, NULL));\r
+> + in_reply_to_message_id);\r
+> }\r
+>\r
+> keys = g_hash_table_get_keys (parents);\r
+> --\r
+> 1.8.1.4\r
+> _______________________________________________\r
+> notmuch mailing list\r
+> notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+> http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff