Re: Parsing regression with gmime-2.6?

diff --git a/a1/28ad05bb0961026b51093ca7ab8e5e57b76279 b/a1/28ad05bb0961026b51093ca7ab8e5e57b76279
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..b9bf772
--- /dev/null
+++ b/a1/28ad05bb0961026b51093ca7ab8e5e57b76279
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+Return-Path: <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>\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 A47E7431FB6\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu,  8 Mar 2012 12:30:34 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: 0\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none]\r
+       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 WI-FRjk9z51k for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Thu,  8 Mar 2012 12:30:33 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [209.234.253.108])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60EBA431FAE\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu,  8 Mar 2012 12:30:33 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from pip.fifthhorseman.net (lair.fifthhorseman.net [108.58.6.98])\r
+       by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E8C7FF970;\r
+       Thu,  8 Mar 2012 15:30:25 -0500 (EST)\r
+Received: by pip.fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)\r
+       id 97516156D9; Thu,  8 Mar 2012 15:30:26 -0500 (EST)\r
+From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>\r
+To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>,\r
+       notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: Parsing regression with gmime-2.6?\r
+In-Reply-To: <87wr6xmlml.fsf@zancas.localnet>\r
+References: <87d38w2e7h.fsf@zancas.localnet>\r
+       <1331058417-13776-1-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu>\r
+       <87wr6xmlml.fsf@zancas.localnet>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1\r
+       (i486-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:30:21 -0500\r
+Message-ID: <87vcme3kf6.fsf@pip.fifthhorseman.net>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";\r
+       micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"\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, 08 Mar 2012 20:30:34 -0000\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+Content-Type: text/plain\r
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable\r
+\r
+On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:04:50 -0400, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:\r
+> There seems to be something weird going on with gmime-2.6; maybe we\r
+> didn't catch some api change?=20\r
+\r
+This does seem to be a regression in gmime 2.6.  I've reported the bug\r
+upstream, along with a simplified (non-notmuch) demonstration:\r
+\r
+ https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D671680\r
+\r
+We'll see what gmime's upstream has to say about it.\r
+\r
+As a devil's advocate, i could argue that a message in a maildir that\r
+starts with a "From " line isn't a proper e-mail message in the first\r
+place, and therefore gmime 2.6 is being more rigorously correct about\r
+what it accepts.  In particular, if a user were to place a multi-message\r
+mbox file in their notmuch message store, i think that notmuch linked\r
+against 2.4 would happily index only the first message of it, and the\r
+rest of the message would be "hidden", whereas gmime 2.6 allows us to\r
+detect these failures and avoid indexing them directly.\r
+\r
+That said, i understand that this is probably not an entirely rare\r
+situation, and i lean toward the idea that gmime 2.4's behavior was\r
+actually the Right Thing.  Also, I haven't been able to find any\r
+explicit documentation to indicate that the behavior change was\r
+a deliberate one.\r
+\r
+I'm happy to relay any helpful or constructive suggestions to the gmime\r
+upstream ticket, if folks don't want to deal with bugzilla directly.\r
+\r
+        --dkg\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+Content-Type: application/pgp-signature\r
+\r
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)\r
+\r
+iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJPWRbdXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w\r
+ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQwRUU1QkU5NzkyODJEODBCOUY3NTQwRjFD\r
+Q0QyRUQ5NEQyMTczOUU5AAoJEMzS7ZTSFznpSmcP/RvqbMboTmrSousjGn7ZSpoK\r
+bGx5D197pb+YXWgWZUViCBQ5aHKlXAPBeMoCwmpTo5elSBoB861wUqnHHNkaIpY9\r
+aGkoMWVjtz53C24Ndoh6WBoLUAKD4aSZp4gxs/jOvtq7d2oUCsc9whDIryfJFqTi\r
+MtWyMb+8dHPTJqTHCvB2OBf/HzjFzdcmU6+nXGrWhW/1Pv1VUwrXDk650hJ9ASQu\r
+0awqP/FE2YRqd8WGilJiZRtAQs1yDgghRx3fgjexxB0n54g+o3eMJyCwzceOG9A6\r
+bOXjExa/bV98LozJzsAfOXNoDMicvmGct3N5WBfln+jtZAV6tcPuQxcsaCqmri9H\r
+I6FyiCxxJ4QCV0PzNigxaR7ohCdlEQtWpxjIlKg201kM5XHp7cId+BbiRRiNyeCU\r
+44qmtiqs8wjX8jEip8e1/K8Y5V5Wjj0BV8rCTEjyl7+06QafyP31E9PxThsqs3YV\r
+PXNBxSnBdYnFKy+MI+CBy1n0KuMut8ligiW6QJxWPnj2192BQuk/giaa1lUOceYk\r
+jlA0QM0SZ+kURmof/rxlO36Ryg5hCzLthGjZATiEQAh08/S0sosUXFrWM1aXmFWX\r
+erUPOS1bJQNvJPJzyxoxPLo4uBTQk4fBUqvc20iqZL4zgVZWaoKrh++s70EDCW1C\r
+oo6KRdw4OZQFkiATj2Wc\r
+=UMFt\r
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+--=-=-=--\r