From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
To: Jan Tatarik <jan.tatarik@gmail.com>
Cc: ding@lists.math.uh.edu
Subject: Re: Scoring on basee64 encoded message body
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:38:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3r4wvp7rl.fsf@stories.gnus.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFHSeq5xQ1kbMKKXK2kCeg40ZEr2DRaWFS0xDqqM_-HcveNBpg@mail.gmail.com> (Jan Tatarik's message of "Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:39:27 +0100")
Jan Tatarik <jan.tatarik@gmail.com> writes:
> I finally realized the content of the messages is base64 encoded, so
> matching on the raw body cannot work.
>
> The attached patch fixes the problem for me, but I have no idea
> whether it's a generally acceptable solution. I'm only using the body
> match in a low-traffic group, so speed is not an issue for me.
[...]
> + (when (string= (gnus-fetch-field "content-transfer-encoding") "base64")
> + (article-de-base64-unreadable t))
This isn't a general enough solution here. QP-encoded messages also
want decoding.
But the more general issue is -- should scoring on bodies be done on the
decoded messages or the encoded messages? I think it would make more
sense to do it on decoded messages, and since these are body matches,
speed don't really matter that much, because body matches are s-l-o-w
anyway.
Scoring on headers are done on the decoded headers, right? So it would
be more consistent to decode the bodies, too. Wouldn't it?
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-14 14:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-13 10:39 Jan Tatarik
2012-03-14 14:38 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen [this message]
2012-03-14 20:21 ` Reiner Steib
2012-03-15 1:29 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2012-03-15 21:05 ` Jan Tatarik
2012-03-22 20:38 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2012-03-23 12:11 ` Jan Tatarik
2012-04-10 19:32 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2012-04-11 7:30 ` Jan Tatarik
2012-04-11 19:34 ` Jan Tatarik
2012-04-12 18:45 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2012-04-12 22:58 ` Jan Tatarik
2012-06-10 21:08 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2012-06-28 9:45 ` Jan Tatarik
2012-09-05 13:40 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2012-09-05 14:39 ` Jan Tatarik
2012-09-05 14:43 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2012-09-05 15:07 ` Jan Tatarik
2012-09-05 15:35 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2012-09-05 15:42 ` Andreas Schwab
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m3r4wvp7rl.fsf@stories.gnus.org \
--to=larsi@gnus.org \
--cc=ding@lists.math.uh.edu \
--cc=jan.tatarik@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).