Add a user-agent property to the full message sexps (i.e., the ones
available in mu4e-view). This property contains either the User-Agent or
X-Mailer string (and is absent otherwise)
Seems people are getting really big mails these days, so let's up the
default (which is also what mu4e uses) to 500 Mb (which should be enough
for everyone, always)
mu: cleanup server side; make sure not to loose 'personal' flag when
seeing same contact in non-personal context
mu4e: tweak the sorting algorithm a bit to take the personal flag into
account
Doing:
!access(...) == 0
Is equivalent to:
(!access(...)) == 0
Not:
!(access(...) == 0)
And throws this warning under clang:
mu-store.cc:77:6: warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand
side of this comparison [-Wlogical-not-parentheses]
if (!access(xpath, F_OK) == 0) {
^ ~~
mu-store.cc:77:6: note: add parentheses after the '!' to evaluate the
comparison first
if (!access(xpath, F_OK) == 0) {
^
( )
mu-store.cc:77:6: note: add parentheses around left hand side expression
to silence this warning
if (!access(xpath, F_OK) == 0) {
^
( )
It ends up doing what the author intended anyway since access() returns
-1 on error, and !-1 == 0, but just do the more obvious check and check
that we don't get 0 here with !=.
Some users were report seeing get_uid_term high in the profiles; so
optimize this:
- make mu_util_get_hash a static inline function (used by get_uid_term)
- don't use 'realpath' in get_uid_term, seem that's the main culprit
- some slight faster string handling there too.
It seems some tools try to interpret the filename of message files,
even though they shouldn't:
"Do not try to extract information from unique names."
In particular, they seem to interpret the first part of the name (before
the first dot) as the # of seconds since the Unix epoch (ie.,
time(NULL)). That's not what mu/mu4e put there.
So, let's conform a bit more to the expected filename (as per the
maildir spec), so we're not confusing those tools.
The core dump only seems to occur if mu4e-headers-include-related is
set to t.
Apparently, std::string's c_str() method is confusing to many
people, c.f.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22330250/how-to-return-a-stdstring-c-str
The answer seems to be that the pointer c_str() returns may not be
valid past the current statement; returning it, or even using it
subsequently can have you sending a wild pointer into e.g. g_strdup().
In short, it seems idioms like this are okay:
return g_strcmp0 (s1.c_str(), s2.c_str()) < 0;
Whereas idioms like this are not:
const char *msgid (iter->msgid().c_str());
return msgid ? g_strdup (msgid) : NULL;
At least in my environment by the time we get to g_strdup() the
pointer returned by c_str() is wild and points at garbage. Since
g_strdup() returns NULL if passed NULL, it seems collapsing it into a
single line is not only possible but necessary.
I've looked at all of the calls to c_str() in mu and it appears to
me this was the one remaining one that was bad.
The test fails in some cases with interesting directory setups, although
the function does work. So de-activate the test for now, until we come
up with a better one.
Since `parent` is not really used as a parent, I use it as the last
visited encrypted part while going down the parts-tree.
At the decryption of a part (`mu_msg_crypto_decrypt_part`) I check,
through the GMimeDecryptResult, for signatures (`check_decrypt_result`)
and add them to the part (`tag_with_sig_status`). Any nested parts hold
that encrypted part as their parent. Finally at `handle_part`, for each
part I check if it a descendent of an encrypted part. If so, I proceed
checking for signatures and adding them to the `msgpart`.
This reverts commit 6e9b9ad2d0.
Unfortunately the reverted commit breaks the Signature field for
encrypted and, at the same time, signed messages.
TODO: details button in the Signatures field does not work for such
cases because the signature is encrypted.
Conflicts:
lib/mu-msg-part.c
Add a decryption field of the form
Decryption: 2 part(s) decrypted 1 part(s) failed
Meaning that 2 encrypted mime parts where successfully decrypted and 1
part failed. Note that the number 2 refers to the number of
successfully decrypted mime parts and not the number of successfully
decrypted encryptes multiparts, i.e., if an encrypted multipart
contains 4 parts and decryption is successful the field will be
Decryption: 4 part(s) decrypted
TODO: Add details button listing the names and indexes of the
decrypted (or not) mime-parts
Pull request #483 does not handle encrypted multiparts properly. It
used to just verify the signature and not process the parts of the
multipart. This commit resolves this issue.
Additionally it did not index attachments properly and in the case of a
multipart directly containing more than one multiparts resulted on non
unique indexing of attachments/parts. This commit resolves this issue
as well.
