[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] Quoted printable problem

From: David Levine
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Quoted printable problem
Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 10:14:16 -0400

Paul F. wrote:

> david wrote [on 5 Jan 2013!!]:
>  > Ralph wrote:
>  > 
>  > > Hi Ken,
>  > > 
>  > > > Maybe changing the error message a bit would be useful?
>  > > 
>  > > Yes, I agree with David's suggestion.  Options include:  state the RFC
>  > > bit being violated so the user can cite it at the miscreant;  suggest
>  > > how the user edit the email to workaround;  refer the user to a bit of
>  > > the documentation that explains the issue in more detail, including the
>  > > previous two.
>  > 
>  > I committed an expanded message with those first two options.
>  > For the original message that started this thread:
>  > 
>  >   mhshow: "multipart/mixed" type in message 1497 must be encoded in
>  >   7bit, 8bit, or binary, per RFC 2045 (6.4).  One workaround is to
>  >   manually edit the file and change the "QUOTED-PRINTABLE"
>  >   Content-Transfer-Encoding to one of those.  For now, continuing...
>  > 
>  > where the quoted strings and message number/filename are variable.
> the trouble with the message is that, at least in the cases of
> mhshow and mhlist, the program doesn't continue.  it quits.  i guess
> that's the goal, but seems like using advise() or even adios() would
> be better, to avoid the false hope given by "continuing..."

Maybe they would continue on to the next multipart, if there was one?

> i just hit one of these, where the multipart/alternative header had
> a c-t-e of quoted-printable.  it was from wordpress.com.  is that where
> the other recent instance was from?
> i confess i'm more on the side of "chastise and continue" for things
> like this, rather than "scold and quit".  are there other strict
> checks in the codebase?  could we add a profile setting that could
> be used to change the behavior to "continue"?

I get maybe two or three of these a year.  For me, it's not worth
adding support for a profile setting.  And I prefer the current

All of the admonish/advise/adios messages and conditions should be
reviewed.  There are a lot of them.  In any case, I don't want to
be in the business of deciding whether failure to pass a strict
check might possibly allow a harmful message to pass.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]