From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/65679 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: jidanni@jidanni.org Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Why won't gnus display certain messages Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 03:52:35 +0800 Message-ID: <877ikj477g.fsf@jidanni.org> References: <87k5onc5m4.fsf@catnip.gol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1195156609 27543 80.91.229.12 (15 Nov 2007 19:56:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:56:49 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M14176@lists.math.uh.edu Thu Nov 15 20:56:54 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Iskp8-0003Fn-32 for ding-account@gmane.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:56:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Isko3-0002HD-QP; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:55:19 -0600 Original-Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Isko2-0002Gx-CH for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:55:18 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Isknw-00083F-Ph for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:55:18 -0600 Original-Received: from lax-green-bigip-5.dreamhost.com ([208.113.200.5] helo=looneymail-a3.g.dreamhost.com) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Isknr-000090-00 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:55:07 +0100 Original-Received: from jidanni1 (122-127-34-215.dynamic.hinet.net [122.127.34.215]) by looneymail-a3.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0322C2835A for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:54:57 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin (3.1.9 2007-02-13) analysis follows Bayesian score: 0.1356 Ham tokens: 0.000-117--278h-0s--0d--Gnus, 0.000-3517--8422h-5s--0d--H*M:fsf, 0.000-3260--7806h-5s--0d--H*MI:fsf, 0.001-361--864h-1s--0d--gnus, 0.001-16--37h-0s--0d--screwed Spam tokens: 0.948-2565--1100h-46242s--0d--HX-Spam-Relays-External:quimby.gnus.org, 0.948-2565--1100h-46242s--0d--H*RU:quimby.gnus.org, 0.915-1750--1804h-44842s--0d--H*r:quimby.gnus.org, 0.909-1608--1947h-44851s--0d--H*r:3.35, 0.909-1617--1980h-45391s--0d--HTo:D*gnus.org Autolearn status: no 1.0 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name -0.7 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 5 to 20% [score: 0.1356] 0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:65679 Archived-At: MB> Your example message has an _empty_ "text" alternative, along with MB> a non-empty "html" alternative, and Gnus is displaying the (empty) MB> text alternative (because you told it to with the above settings). Which occurs about 50% of the Mime alternatives messages I receive too. MB> The real problem of course is that the software that sent the message MB> screwed up big-time by including an unusable text alternative. Sure hope gnus has facilities to detect such, and roll with the punches.