Re: Base64 problem.
- To: mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Base64 problem.
- From: Sertaç Ö. Yıldız <sertac.liste@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:52:45 +0300
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=S3IMBh8B2VcAU1jYnZlfWibYL4e1WZ+1hOtQSFLTwaI1dCbrnD2/WeDaDxSTbExjwMYgiS4JIqW6/171Z6RWUgovvAqBjRHp8dAbOHh2ei/iUhk87t4RI+nluV6nSkg31xoy0YfRm/zYn/H4cG57kXwGLl9GBJew2+8jeS3xzp8=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=nekjxadjDhWJN7YgL9S+JwIkKYdW0KQsHJX0nR6vsboLRPxeUrD7MdV0XIITtuSv3ENWiC3E+aWSnkdScowF7OZ3rjC3zqIjClFyW9n8yeVfTBJQLwR3KuKP54l7FL835My4jGL3Amu6KS6noeFMh3AxjenA0HphhKMrROVu5K8=
- In-reply-to: <20070815003127.GA490@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-post: <mailto:mutt-users@mutt.org>
- List-unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@mutt.org, body only "unsubscribe mutt-users"
- Mail-followup-to: mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
- References: <20070815003127.GA490@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
* [14.Ağu.07 17:31 -0700] Ray Van Dolson:
> That is a multipart/mixed message with a multipart/alternative message
> inside of it. However, the first text portion of the
> multipart/alternative portion appears to be improperly labeled as
> base64.
Not the text part, the multipart/alternative part itself is labeled as
base64. And AFAIK, that's not permitted for multipart types.
> The only way I can get it to show up in mutt is to edit the raw
> message and change the first base64 to 8bit (leaving the base64 for
> the actual file attachment).
You can also view from the attachments menu.
> So is this message being generated incorrectly?
Yes.
> Should mutt handle things differently instead of just bombing out?
Yes, IMHO. I'm using the attached patch for this.
--
~sertaç
--- mutt-1.5.16-orig/handler.c 2007-08-15 14:10:26.000000000 +0300
+++ mutt-1.5.16/handler.c 2007-08-15 14:10:05.000000000 +0300
@@ -1575,9 +1575,10 @@
fseeko (s->fpin, b->offset, 0);
/* see if we need to decode this part before processing it */
- if (b->encoding == ENCBASE64 || b->encoding == ENCQUOTEDPRINTABLE ||
+ if (b->type != TYPEMULTIPART &&
+ (b->encoding == ENCBASE64 || b->encoding == ENCQUOTEDPRINTABLE ||
b->encoding == ENCUUENCODED || plaintext ||
- mutt_is_text_part (b)) /* text subtypes may
+ mutt_is_text_part (b))) /* text subtypes may
* require character
* set conversion even
* with 8bit encoding.
--- mutt/PATCHES.old Tue Nov 6 19:59:33 2001
+++ mutt/PATCHES Tue Nov 6 19:59:42 2001
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+sy.multipart_decode