mailscripts 0.11 now ships a derivative of devel/printmimestructure
called email-print-mime-structure. Maintenance for that utility will
happen in mailscripts from now on, so we should not track an
independent copy of it in notmuch's source tree.
See https://bugs.debian.org/939993 for more details about the
adoption.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
We want freeing the returned stream to also free these underlying
objects. Compare tests/test-filters.c in the gmime 3.2.x source, which
uses this same idiom.
Thanks to James Troup for the report and the fix.
When showing or replying to a message that has been mangled in transit
by an MTA in the "Mixed up" way, notmuch should instead use the
repaired form of the message.
Tracking the repaired GMimeObject for the lifetime of the mime_node so
that it is cleaned up properly is probably the trickiest part of this
patch, but the choices here are based on the idea that the
mime_node_context is the memory manager for the whole mime_node tree
in the first place, so new GMimeObject tree created on-the-fly during
message parsing should be disposed of in the same place.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
When encountering a message that has been mangled in the "mixed up"
way by an intermediate MTA, notmuch should instead repair it and index
the repaired form.
When it does this, it also associates the index.repaired=mixedup
property with the message. If a problem is found with this repair
process, or an improved repair process is proposed later, this should
make it easy for people to reindex the relevant message. The property
will also hopefully make it easier to diagnose this particular problem
in the future.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Implement a functional identification and repair process for "Mixed
Up" MIME messages as described in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dkg-openpgp-pgpmime-message-mangling-00#section-4.1
The detection test is not entirely complete, in that it does not
verify the contents of the latter two message subparts, but this is
probably safe to skip, because those two parts are unlikely to be
readable anyway, and the only part we are effectively omitting (the
first subpart) is guaranteed to be empty anyway, so its removal can be
reversed if you want to do so. I've left FIXMEs in the code so that
anyone excited about adding these additional checks can see where to
put them in.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Some MTAs mangle e-mail messages in transit in ways that are
repairable.
Microsoft Exchange (in particular, the version running today on
Office365's mailservers) appears to mangle multipart/encrypted
messages in a way that makes them undecryptable by the recipient.
I've documented this in section 4.1 "Mixed-up encryption" of draft -00
of
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dkg-openpgp-pgpmime-message-mangling
Fortunately, it's possible to repair such a message, and notmuch can
do that so that a user who receives an encrypted message from a user
of office365.com can still decrypt the message.
Enigmail already knows about this particular kind of mangling. It
describes it as "broken PGP email format probably caused by an old
Exchange server", and it tries to repair by directly changing the
message held by the user. if this kind of repair goes wrong, the
repair process can cause data loss
(https://sourceforge.net/p/enigmail/bugs/987/, yikes).
The tests introduced here are currently broken. In subsequent
patches, i'll introduce a non-destructive form of repair for notmuch
so that notmuch users can read mail that has been mangled in this way,
and the tests will succeed.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Whitespace in $NOTMUCH_SRCDIR (and $PWD) may work in builds,
but definitely will not work in tests. It would be difficult
to make tests support whitespace in test filename paths -- and
fragile to maintain if done.
So it is just easier and safer to disallow whitespace there.
In case of out of tree build $NOTMUCH_SRCDIR differs from $PWD
(current directory). Extend this whitespace, and also previously
made unsafe characters check to $PWD too.
When we notice a legacy-display part during indexing, it makes more
sense to avoid indexing it as part of the message body.
Given that the protected subject will already be indexed, there is no
need to index this part at all, so we skip over it.
If this happens during indexing, we set a property on the message:
index.repaired=skip-protected-headers-legacy-display
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Make use of the previous changes to fast-forward past any
legacy-display parts during "notmuch show" and "notmuch reply".
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
This is a utility function designed to make it easier to
"fast-forward" past a legacy-display part associated with a
cryptographic envelope, and show the user the intended message body.
The bulk of the ugliness in here is in the test function
_notmuch_crypto_payload_has_legacy_display, which tests all of the
things we'd expect to be true in a a cryptographic payload that
contains a legacy display part.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Our _notmuch_message_crypto_potential_payload implementation could
only return a failure if bad arguments were passed to it. It is an
internal function, so if that happens it's an entirely internal bug
for notmuch.
It will be more useful for this function to return whether or not the
part is in fact a cryptographic payload, so we dispense with the
status return.
If some future change suggests adding a status return back, there are
only a handful of call sites, and no pressure to retain a stable API,
so it could be changed easily. But for now, go with the simpler
function.
We will use this return value in future patches, to make different
decisions based on whether a part is the cryptographic payload or not.
But for now, we just leave the places where it gets invoked marked
with (void) to show that the result is ignored.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
_notmuch_message_crypto_potential_payload is called on a GMimeObject
while walking the MIME tree of a message to determine whether that
object is the payload. It doesn't make sense to name the argument
"payload" if it might not be the payload, so we rename it to "part"
for clarity.
This is a non-functional change, just semantic cleanup.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Enigmail generates a "legacy-display" part when it sends encrypted
mail with a protected Subject: header. This part is intended to
display the Subject for mail user agents that are capable of
decryption, but do not know how to deal with embedded protected
headers.
This part is the first child of a two-part multipart/mixed
cryptographic payload within a cryptographic envelope that includes
encryption (that is, it is not just a cleartext signed message). It
uses Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers.
That is:
A └┬╴multipart/encrypted
B ├─╴application/pgp-encrypted
C └┬╴application/octet-stream
* ╤ <decryption>
D └┬╴multipart/mixed; protected-headers=v1 (cryptographic payload)
E ├─╴text/rfc822-headers; protected-headers=v1 (legacy-display part)
F └─╴… (actual message body)
In discussions with jrollins, i've come to the conclusion that a
legacy-display part should be stripped entirely from "notmuch show"
and "notmuch reply" now that these tools can understand and interpret
protected headers.
You can tell when a message part is a protected header part this way:
* is the payload (D) multipart/mixed with exactly two children?
* is its first child (E) Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers?
* does the first child (E) have the property protected-headers=v1?
* do all the headers in the body of the first child (E) match
the protected headers in the payload part (D) itself?
If this is the case, and we already know how to deal with the
protected header, then there is no reason to try to render the
legacy-display part itself for the user.
Furthermore, when indexing, if we are indexing properly, we should
avoid indexing the text in E as part of the message body.
'notmuch reply' is an interesting case: the standard use of 'notmuch
reply' will end up omitting all mention of protected Subject:.
The right fix is for the replying MUA to be able to protect its
headers, and for it to set them appropriately based on headers found
in the original message.
If a replying MUA is unable to protect headers, but still wants the
user to be able to see the original header, a replying MUA that
notices that the original message's subject differs from the proposed
reply subject may choose to include the original's subject in the
quoted/attributed text. (this would be a stopgap measure; it's not
even clear that there is user demand for it)
This test suite change indicates what we want to happen for this case
(the tests are currently broken), and includes three additional TODO
suggestions of subtle cases for anyone who wants to flesh out the test
suite even further. (i believe all these cases should be already
fixed by the rest of this series, but haven't had time to write the
tests for the unusual cases)
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
This adds no functionality directly, but is a useful starting point
for adding new repair functionality.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
This is a code reorganization that should have no functional effect,
but will make future changes simpler, because a future commit will
reuse the _mime_node_set_up_part functionality without touching
_mime_node_create.
In the course of splitting out this function, I noticed a comment in
the codebase that referred to an older name of _mime_node_create
(message_part_create), where this functionality originally resided.
I've fixed that comment to refer to the new function instead.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
While check for GMime session key extraction support... was made
out of tree build compatible, related (and some unrelated) unsafe
characters are now checked in notmuch source directory path.
The known unsafe characters in NOTMUCH_SRCDIR are:
- Single quote (') -- NOTMUCH_SRCDIR='${NOTMUCH_SRCDIR}'
is written to sh.config in configure line 1328.
- Double quote (") -- configure line 521 *now* writes "$srcdir"
into generated c source file ($NOTMUCH_SRCDIR includes $srcdir).
- Backslash (\) could also be problematic in configure line 521.
- The added $ and ` are potentially unsafe -- inside double quotes
in shell script those have special meaning.
Other characters don't expand inside double quoted strings.
Previously, when all tests were skipped on a test file, there were
no indication of this in the final results aggregate-results.sh
printed.
Now count of the files where all tests were skipped is printed.
This is the result of running:
$ uncrustify --replace --config devel/uncrustify.cfg *.c *.h
In the top level source directory. I was using uncrustify
0.68.1+dfsg1-2.
I do not know why these changes were not caught in
33382c2b5b
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
This is the result of running:
$ uncrustify --replace --config ../devel/uncrustify.cfg *.cc *.c *.h
in the test directory.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
This removes the dependency of this test script on gdb, and
considerably speeds up the running of the tests.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
These can be used e.g. to override return values for functions, in
place of the existing scripting of gdb.
This prepends to LD_PRELOAD rather than clobbering it, thanks to a
suggestion from Tomi Ollila.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Debian's lintian has an informational alert
desktop-entry-lacks-keywords-entry, which recommends including
Keywords= in a .desktop file.
I dug around a bit in /usr/share/applications/*.desktop to make sure
that we covered the range of keywords other e-mail applications are
using. If anyone has other suggestions for keywords, they can add
them to this list.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
The extra flexibility of having both HAVE_EMACS (for yes, there is an
emacs we can use) and WITH_EMACS (the user wants emacs support) lead
to confusion and bugs. We now just force WITH_EMACS to 0 if no
suitable emacs is detected.
