Gnus development mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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/



  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).