Re: The QP encoding issue - again!

From: Dustin Puryear (
Date: Mon 01 Dec 2003 - 22:08:36 GMT

  • Next message: Dustin Puryear: "Re: The QP encoding issue - again!"

    Do you still have your modifications? Our modifications are, alas, not
    fixing the problem. If you are able to stop the problem entirely then that
    would be even better than the solution we tried, and the one that Bjarni has
    proposed. I'm very interested in his patches, but I'd rather Anomy didn't do
    any unnecessary conversions if possible.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Dave Cridland [Home]" <>
    To: "Dustin Puryear" <>; <>
    Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 9:37 AM
    Subject: Re: [anomy-list]: The QP encoding issue - again!

    > On Mon Nov 10 20:17:30 2003, Dustin Puryear wrote:
    > >We are battling the QP encoding issue. For those unfamiliar with this
    > >when a binary that has been improperly encoded via QP encoding by an
    > >client passes through Anomy it can become garbled if Anomy converts a
    > >to a LF (or vice-versa?).
    > >
    > Somewhere deep in the depths of time, I knocked together an alternative
    > design for Anomy Sanitizer's main driver which avoided this problem.
    > The problem is, quite simply, that the Sanitizer decodes and reencodes all
    > parts.
    > The thing is, there's no need to decode and reencode the part at all -
    > Sanitizer *knows* it's not going to do anything with it by this point,
    > from re-encoding it.
    > The problem is that Anomy Sanitizer decodes a part before considering
    > that was a good idea or not.
    > Whether or not the mail client should have used QP is largely irrelevant -
    > the point is that it has, and to decode and recode without a good reason
    > I'm afraid, a bug.
    > But this is, as ever, purely my opinion.
    > Dave

    hosted by