Hi again, to my taste, it is a bit to cumbersome to contribute to a Problem Report. This is now the third attempt to get my patch posted. Is it really necessary to be on one of the mailing lists just to post a patch?? Greetings Ingo.
--- Begin Message ---
- To: mutt-dev-owner@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: [mutt-dev-owner@xxxxxxxx: Stalled post to mutt-dev]
- From: Ingo Hadan <hadan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:26:11 +0100
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Hallo everybody, I am a bit irritated by the delay that my message to the developement mailing list is suffering. It's now nearly a week ago that I posted the attached message to the interested parties of the bug imap/2106. (I haven't found a different method to submit the patch, as I have only read access to the Bug Tracking system.) I had expected that contributions like this get handled a bit faster. Can it be, that the messages has been lost somewhere in a spam folder? Hoping to see my message soon on the list... Ingo.--- Begin Message ---
- To: Ingo Hadan <hadan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Stalled post to mutt-dev
- From: mutt-dev-owner@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:24:35 +0100
Your message to mutt-dev has been delayed, and requires the approval of the moderators, for the following reason(s): The author (Ingo Hadan <hadan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) is not a member of any of the restrict_post groups. If you do not wish the message to be posted, or have other concerns, please send a message to the list owners at the following address: mutt-dev-owner@xxxxxxxx--- Begin Message ---
- To: Mutt Gnats Admin <mutt-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mutt Developers <mutt-dev@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: imap/2106: Mutt hangs during NTLM-IMAP-authentication against M$-Exchange-Server
- From: Ingo Hadan <hadan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:23:58 +0200
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
http%3A%2F%2Fbugs.mutt.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fgnatsweb.pl%3Fcmd%3Dview%2520audit-trail%26database%3Dmutt%26pr%3D2106 Hi everybody, I tried out the patch that had been attached to the bug. Unfortunately, it does not work, because other parts of the code also rely on the continuation consisting of at least two bytes ("+ "). Therefore, I created a patch that replaces a "+" (without space) from the server with "+ ". This way the RFC violation is silently corrected and all other code keeps unaffected by the M$-Exchange "features". Greetings. Ingo.diff -Naurp mutt-1.5.9/imap/command.c mutt-1.5.9.patched/imap/command.c --- mutt-1.5.9/imap/command.c 2005-02-03 19:47:54.000000000 +0100 +++ mutt-1.5.9.patched/imap/command.c 2005-10-24 21:25:34.000000000 +0200 @@ -150,7 +150,15 @@ int imap_cmd_step (IMAP_DATA* idata) { return IMAP_CMD_RESPOND; } - + /* Some servers are buggy and send empty continuation responses with the + * blank after '+' missing. For those servers, the blank is inserted here. + * Note, that in this case there is enough space in cmd->buf to insert one + * char as cmd->buf never shrinks below IMAP_CMD_BUFSIZE */ + if (!ascii_strncmp (cmd->buf, "+", 2)) + { + strncpy(cmd->buf, "+ ", 3); + return IMAP_CMD_RESPOND; + } /* tagged completion code */ if (!ascii_strncmp (cmd->buf, cmd->seq, SEQLEN)) {
--- End Message ---
--- End Message ---
--- End Message ---