Hi,
* Peter Collingbourne wrote:
I am resending this patch as it seems to have been overlooked.
Pushed as 2fefd56f440c, thanks.
Rocco
Go for it.
On Thursday, 18 December 2008 at 17:37, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Peter Collingbourne wrote:
>
>> It seems that during parsing any illegal characters within the
>> message-id are stripped by mutt_extract_message_id. Therefore the
>> message-id passed to mutt_write_rfc822_header sh
Hi,
* Peter Collingbourne wrote:
It seems that during parsing any illegal characters within the
message-id are stripped by mutt_extract_message_id. Therefore the
message-id passed to mutt_write_rfc822_header should be valid and
printable using fprintf.
ACK. I'm going to commit this this if n
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:57:02AM +0100, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> what if the header
> you're printing already is illegal by containing a newline like so and
> is overly long:
>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It hope does a sane thing now but won't with a simple fprintf() leaving
> a br
Hi,
* Peter Collingbourne wrote:
I am resending this patch as it seems to have been overlooked.
Nope, just that nobody said something doesn't mean it got overlooked.
I didn't look at the code, this is just a wild guess: what if the header
you're printing already is illegal by containing a ne
Hello,
I am resending this patch as it seems to have been overlooked.
Presently mutt wraps the Message-ID header to 76 characters in
outgoing mail messages. This is incorrect behaviour as it will
result in whitespace appearing in the middle of message IDs longer
than 62 characters. Such a heade
Hello,
Presently mutt wraps the Message-ID header to 76 characters in
outgoing mail messages. This is incorrect behaviour as it will
result in whitespace appearing in the middle of message IDs longer
than 62 characters. Such a header is not RFC 2822 compliant, and
will not match the unwrapped ID
