GNU bug report logs - #869
Bug in handling invisible text, and bug in Pmail.

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 869 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 869 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Michael Reilly <pmr <at> pajato.com>
To: rms <at> gnu.org
Cc: emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: Bug in handling invisible text, and bug in Pmail.
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 04:15:33 -0400

"Richard M. Stallman" <rms <at> gnu.org> writes:

 > I think it is also a bug in Pmail.  Pmail should set the buffer boundaries
 > after that text, rather than making it invisible.

I don't think it is that simple because "that text" is simply part of
the collection of headers, some of which have been specified to be
invisible as Emacs displays the message, i.e. the X-Coding-System:
header can, according to rfc2822, precede or follow the Date: header.
This, if I understand the issue and your desires properly, makes
setting the buffer boundaries a non-workable solution.  I don't know
what the right solution is yet.  Worst case, the issue is an
indictment of using invisible text to hide the headers.  Yuck.

-pmr


 > If Pmail is fixed, then it won't trigger the invisible text bug.
 > But I think it needs to be fixed anyway.
 > 
 > 
 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 > >From Brand <at> xyzxysxysbb.com  Fri Aug 22 01:11:22 2008
 > X-Coding-System: undecided-unix
 > Return-path: <Brand <at> xyzxysxysbb.com>
 > Envelope-to: rms <at> gnu.org
 > Delivery-date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:11:22 -0400
 > Received: from mx10.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]:43206)
 > 	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67)
 > 	(envelope-from <Brand <at> xyzxysxysbb.com>)
 > 	id 1KWOvi-0001Cl-Jw
 > 	for rms <at> gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:11:22 -0400
 > Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60)
 > 	(envelope-from <Brand <at> xyzxysxysbb.com>)
 > 	id 1KWOwz-0000Ti-Nv
 > 	for rms <at> gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:12:44 -0400
 > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on monty-python
 > X-Spam-Level: 
 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
 > 	FORGED_RCVD_HELO,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=3.1.0
 > Received: from sh.day.org ([198.102.73.65]:47087)
 > 	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
 > 	(envelope-from <Brand <at> xyzxysxysbb.com>)
 > 	id 1KWOwz-0000T4-E6
 > 	for rms <at> gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:12:41 -0400
 > X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e
 > Received: from vree.xyzxysxysbb.com (sh.day.org [198.102.73.65])
 > 	by sh.day.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18A9EC6988A39
 > 	for <rms <at> gnu.org>; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
 > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 > 	by vree.xyzxysxysbb.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id m7M1kbEs004491
 > 	for <rms <at> gnu.org>; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:46:46 -0700
 > Message-Id: <200808220146.m7M1kbEs004491 <at> vree.xyzxysxysbb.com>
 > To: rms <at> gnu.org
 > Subject: sorry that I was distracted with phone calls 
 > From: Brand <at> xyzxysxysbb.com
 > Reply-to: brand <at> xyzxysxysbb.com
 > Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:46:37 -0700
 > X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized.
 > X-BABYL-V6-ATTRIBUTES: A------
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Two other ideas to run past you when time permits.
 > 
 > /w

Message #12 received at 869 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA>
To: pmr <at> pajato.com
Cc: 869 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#869: Bug in handling invisible text, and bug in Pmail.
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:39:09 -0400

> I don't think it is that simple because "that text" is simply part of
> the collection of headers, some of which have been specified to be
> invisible as Emacs displays the message, i.e. the X-Coding-System:
> header can, according to rfc2822, precede or follow the Date: header.
> This, if I understand the issue and your desires properly, makes
> setting the buffer boundaries a non-workable solution.  I don't know
> what the right solution is yet.  Worst case, the issue is an
> indictment of using invisible text to hide the headers.  Yuck.

But is that specific to Pmail?  I.e. doesn't Rmail use the same
texhcnique (or even code) to hide the headers?
If Pmail is indeed different, could you explain to me why Pmail had to
change this part of the code?  It seems unrelated to babyl-vs-mbox.


        Stefan

Message #17 received at submit <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA>, 869 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: pmr <at> pajato.com, bug-submit-list <at> donarmstrong.com,
        869 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#869: Bug in handling invisible text, and bug in Pmail.
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:10:41 -0400

Rmail hides some headers by making a copy of the whole header.
In that copy it deletes the uninteresting headers.
Babyl format makes special provision for that.
Pmail cannot use that method.

If we make Pmail always display the current message decoded in a
separate buffer, we could delete uninteresting header fields from that
buffer.

Message #22 received at submit <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms <at> gnu.org>
To: pmr <at> pajato.com, 869 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#869: Bug in handling invisible text, and bug in Pmail.
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:11:14 -0400

     > I think it is also a bug in Pmail.  Pmail should set the buffer boundaries
     > after that text, rather than making it invisible.

    I don't think it is that simple because "that text" is simply part of
    the collection of headers, some of which have been specified to be
    invisible as Emacs displays the message, i.e. the X-Coding-System:
    header can, according to rfc2822, precede or follow the Date: header.

Why does that make it not simple?  You can move the uninteresting headers
to the top and put point-min after them.

Also, if it is necessary to display the decoded message in a separate
buffer then Pmail can delete the unwanted headers in that buffer.

Message #42 received at 869 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Michael Reilly <pmr <at> pajato.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> IRO.UMontreal.CA>
Cc: 869 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#869: Bug in handling invisible text, and bug in Pmail.
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:54:49 -0400

Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> I don't think it is that simple because "that text" is simply part of
>> the collection of headers, some of which have been specified to be
>> invisible as Emacs displays the message, i.e. the X-Coding-System:
>> header can, according to rfc2822, precede or follow the Date: header.
>> This, if I understand the issue and your desires properly, makes
>> setting the buffer boundaries a non-workable solution.  I don't know
>> what the right solution is yet.  Worst case, the issue is an
>> indictment of using invisible text to hide the headers.  Yuck.
> 
> But is that specific to Pmail?  I.e. doesn't Rmail use the same
> texhcnique (or even code) to hide the headers?
> If Pmail is indeed different, could you explain to me why Pmail had to
> change this part of the code?  It seems unrelated to babyl-vs-mbox.

Apparently, Rmail/babyl rearranges the headers and then sets the buffer 
boundaries, thus eliminating the problem.  Rmail/mbox could have (and 
probably should have) used the same approach.

Now however, it is pretty clear that a presentation buffer is in order 
to deal with the coding issue, something I ill understand today but I'm 
gradually picking up.  I also think that the coding issue implicitly 
means better MIME handling within Rmail.  Not hardly a bad thing, 
especially given modern Emacs' improved graphic capabilities.

-pmr

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.