desktop-packages team mailing list archive

[Jelmer Vernooij <812268@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 06:44:32PM -0000, Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote:
> No, I don't think it's an issue anymore -- so I'll remove the bug
> assignment.
> 
> Jelmer, you filed the bug initially, do you still see such issues?
Thanks for following up :)

I am no longer using evolution, so unfortunately I can't check whether
this is still happening.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to evolution in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/812268

Title:
  doesn't display body for some GPG-signed emails

Status in evolution package in Ubuntu:
  Incomplete

Bug description:
  Newer versions of evolution have stopped displaying the body for some
  emails that are GPG-signed. Here is an example of the source of such a
  problematic email:

  
  Return-Path: <bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  Received: from lists.samba.org (fn.samba.org [216.83.154.106]) by
   mxdrop150.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6ICBbGm053346 for
   <vernooi1@xxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:11:39 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from
   bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
  Received: by lists.samba.org (Postfix) id CA5F1AC287; Mon, 18 Jul 2011
   06:11:37 -0600 (MDT)
  Delivered-To: jelmer@xxxxxxxxx
  Received: from adelie.canonical.com (adelie.canonical.com [91.189.90.139])
   by lists.samba.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7A8AC336 for
   <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 06:11:29 -0600 (MDT)
  Received: from loganberry.canonical.com ([91.189.90.37]) by
   adelie.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 #1 (Debian)) id 1QimfW-00044W-Gt
   for <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:11:26 +0000
  Received: from loganberry.canonical.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
   loganberry.canonical.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BBDC2EAB3F for
   <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:11:26 +0000 (UTC)
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
  MIME-Version: 1.0
  X-Launchpad-Message-Rationale: Reviewer
  X-Launchpad-Notification-Type: code-review
  X-Launchpad-Branch: ~baztian/bzr/809901-filter
  In-Reply-To: <CAA-CaOV=g6+-wNFFPCMVxxLL_C5pJUp3A9+t=MqaUHX75t+2TA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  Reply-To: mp+67845@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Message-Id: <4E2421AE.1070208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  X-Launchpad-Project: bzr
  To: mp+67845@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  From: John A Meinel <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  Subject: Re: [Merge] lp:~baztian/bzr/809901-filter into lp:bzr
  Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:11:26 -0000
  Sender: bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Errors-To: bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Precedence: bulk
  X-Generated-By: Launchpad (canonical.com); Revision="13405";
   Instance="initZopeless config overlay"
  X-Launchpad-Hash: dd9b49a01fb2ca7fb6a076b879016ccdcf1e52e8
  X-XS4ALL-DNSBL-Checked: mxdrop150.xs4all.nl checked 216.83.154.106 against
   DNS blacklists
  X-CNFS-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=0zc6fmG9YcuPB4Yp6G+9JUp7sX0X0uIJmZE+jPYAbEE= c=1
   sm=0 a=bf2lbYCmWCMA:10 a=V5BiAS5A5MUA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10
   a=obc2vuLeljtJ8xX1QGp5zg==:17 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=danhDmx_AAAA:8
   a=xe8BsctaAAAA:8 a=T7S0KEHCzfaTa4oP_cwA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
   a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=obc2vuLeljtJ8xX1QGp5zg==:117
  X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner
  X-XS4ALL-Spam-Score: -0.0 () SPF_HELO_PASS
  X-XS4ALL-Spam: NO
  Envelope-To: vernooi1@xxxxxxxxx
  Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
  X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mxdrop150.xs4all.nl
   id p6ICBbGm053346
  X-Evolution-Source: imap://vernooi1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:993/

  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
  Hash: SHA1

  On 7/14/2011 8:56 AM, Bastian wrote:
  > Hi Martin,
  > 
  > the tes fails without the change. I've now pushed a proper news entry.
  > 
  > Bastian
  > 
  > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Martin Pool <martinpool@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  >> Thanks for the patch.
  >>
  >> That looks plausible to me, though I'd like a second review.
  >>
  >> Does this test fail without the change to sets applied?
  >>
  >> There ought to be a news entry saying the bug was fixed.
  >>
  >> --
  >> https://code.launchpad.net/~baztian/bzr/809901-filter/+merge/67845
  >> You are the owner of lp:~baztian/bzr/809901-filter.
  >>
  > 

  I'm a little concerned about the memory consumption of lots of sets. A
  single set with more than 6 items in it becomes ~500 bytes.

  I'm curious if it would be better to leave it as a list, and then just
  put it into a set later before we iterate over it. (Then you only really
  have 1 set at a time, rather than one for each path.)

  We can always wait and see if this becomes a memory issue or not.

  John
  =:->

  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
  Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
  Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

  iEYEARECAAYFAk4kIa0ACgkQJdeBCYSNAAPh0gCgj95XGZBTLb1HXD1kXkQQ7ywe
  B68AoJ2FAFcfX9nQ0YFOu7wB6oWd4Ou/
  =rj6S
  -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  -- 
  https://code.launchpad.net/~baztian/bzr/809901-filter/+merge/67845
  You are reviewing the proposed merge of lp:~baztian/bzr/809901-filter into lp:bzr.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/evolution/+bug/812268/+subscriptions