Re: missing attachment in mails
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: missing attachment in mails |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevEw+814SfEk7ZKf=4xkRGHmNZAHADHQfRMUsxNwcAFvwBw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: missing attachment in mails (Cédric Villemain <cedric@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-www |
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Cédric Villemain <cedric@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Le lundi 17 juin 2013 23:30:16, Cédric Villemain a écrit : >> Le lundi 17 juin 2013 15:56:44, Magnus Hagander a écrit : >> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Cédric Villemain >> > >> > <cedric@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > > Le mercredi 29 mai 2013 19:36:46, Stephen Frost a écrit : >> > >> * Cédric Villemain (cedric@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> > >> > I've search another example and found one from Stephen Frost (Sign + >> > >> > attachment): >> > >> > >> > >> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130413030619.GN4361@tamriel.s >> > >> > no wma n.net >> > >> > >> > >> > it contains an attachment not visible in the archive. >> > >> >> > >> Huh, neat. Yeah, this is the way mutt handles attachments, etc, and >> > >> is pretty common (at least, among open source folks :). We should >> > >> probably look into figuring out how to support it.. >> > > >> > > I had no time to have a look at that. >> > > CF is on its way but the mails linked from CF items don't contain >> > > attachment... >> > > >> > > How can I help fixing that ? >> > >> > A good start would be to identify exactly when this happens. Not based >> > on which MUA is used, but based on which types of messages. The first >> > one on your list (the only one i have time to check right this moment >> > - boarding a flight) is a multipart/signed containing a >> > multipart/mixed for example - might it be that the problem lies in >> > nested multipart or so? >> >> Correct, issue was that recursion entered only multipart/mixed, I've added >> multipart/signed. See patch 0001. >> I've also attached a patch to correct a typo. > > would you mind review this patch ? Both look good, applied, thanks! I've reparsed the specific messages you mentioned in this thread, but I haven't gone back and reparsed all the historic ones (because I don't know of a good way to identify them without scanning everything). All new messages should parse fine though. Apologies for the delay. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: