On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 03:05:58PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >
> >> Now, having said that, I'd like to see some more people testing it
> >> than the few people I've forced to do it so far. The way to test it is
> >> to go to http://www.postgresql.org/list/ and pick your list. You can
> >> also go to http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/<message-id> to view a
> >> message in a thread - that should also work fine if you just replace
> >> "archives" with "www" in the URL of an existing message in the
> >> archives *if* you were using the message-id based url.
> >
> > Actually, hold the presses. See this message:
> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20110907091634.GL24583@sonic.net
> > It says "the patch is attached", but there is no attachment.
> > The old archives do contain the patch.
>
> Bug found and fixed. The problem was that we missed attachments that
> were text/plain, did not have a name, but did have a filename. I first
> thought it was another case of the From line in mbox, but if you
> looked at the raw output you could see that we actually had the whole
> thing in there. So in passing, I also wrote a small tool that lets us
> reparse messages that are already in the db, whenever we change/fix
> the parsing rules.
The following message exhibits similar symptoms; the attachment appears in the
raw and mbox versions only:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130103031358.GB11705@tornado.leadboat.com
It, too, is text/plain with a "filename" and no "name". Some attachments I
sent on 2013-01-08, using the same email toolchain, show up fine.
