From: Matthias A. <mat...@gm...> - 2010-03-28 16:46:15
|
(sorry for breaking the threading and the late reply, this message was lost in transit of eaten by my spam filter; I'm replying from the web archives where I lack message-id headers) Frédéric Marchal wrote: > Hello, > > I just noticed that the message printed in rfc822.c at line 76: > > if (outlevel >= O_DEBUG) > report_build(stdout, GT_("About to rewrite %s"), buf); > > doesn't end with a \n. The next message written at line 212 is therefore > concatenated with this one. That's bad and I think it's a bug. I think I'll fix it after the 6.3.15 release so as not to break the translations of this message. > The same may be true for the message printed in driver.c starting at line 619: > > report_build(stdout, GT_("reading message %s@%s:%d of %d"), > ctl->remotename, ctl->server.truename, > num, count); > > if (len > 0) > report_build(stdout, wholesize ? GT_(" (%d octets)") > : GT_(" (%d header octets)"), len); > > In my log, it is concatenated with the above mentioned message. Can you show a sample for that? I think the LF is deliberately missing here, because we want to add the dots ticker, but OTOH if that's not going to be displayed, we do need the LF. Thanks for your report. -- Matthias Andree |
From: Frédéric M. <fre...@wo...> - 2010-03-29 09:58:16
|
On Sunday 28 March 2010, Matthias Andree wrote: > (sorry for breaking the threading and the late reply, this message was lost > in transit of eaten by my spam filter; I'm replying from the web archives > where I lack message-id headers) > > Frédéric Marchal wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I just noticed that the message printed in rfc822.c at line 76: > > > > if (outlevel >= O_DEBUG) > > report_build(stdout, GT_("About to rewrite %s"), buf); > > > > doesn't end with a \n. The next message written at line 212 is therefore > > concatenated with this one. > > That's bad and I think it's a bug. I think I'll fix it after the 6.3.15 > release so as not to break the translations of this message. It only occurs when -vv is in the command line so it is really a trivial issue. > > The same may be true for the message printed in driver.c starting at line > > 619: > > > > report_build(stdout, GT_("reading message %s@%s:%d of %d"), > > ctl->remotename, ctl->server.truename, > > num, count); > > > > if (len > 0) > > report_build(stdout, wholesize ? GT_(" (%d octets)") > > > > : GT_(" (%d header octets)"), len); > > > > In my log, it is concatenated with the above mentioned message. > > Can you show a sample for that? I think the LF is deliberately missing > here, because we want to add the dots ticker, but OTOH if that's not going > to be displayed, we do need the LF. The lines are going to be wrapped by the mailer so I add one additional blank line after each LF of the original log. Mar 29 07:11:53 mail fetchmail[3045]: lecture du message ww...@mm...:37 parmi 396 (20695 octets)#012Sur le point de réécrire Return-path: <amb...@xr...>#015#012#012La version réécrite est Return-path: <amb...@xr...>#015#012 Mar 29 07:11:53 mail fetchmail[3045]: Sur le point de réécrire From: Barillo Schoreplum <amb...@xr...>#015#012#012La version réécrite est From: Barillo Schoreplum <amb...@xr...>#015#012 Mar 29 07:11:53 mail fetchmail[3045]: Sur le point de réécrire To: Bansmer Selis <lau...@wo...>#015#012#012La version réécrite est To: Bansmer Selis <lau...@wo...>#015#012 Mar 29 07:11:53 mail fetchmail[3045]: passage au travers de lau...@wo... et coïncidence avec wowcompany.com Mar 29 07:11:53 mail fetchmail[3045]: réexpédition vers localhost Mar 29 07:11:53 mail fetchmail[3045]: SMTP> MAIL FROM:<amb...@xr...> SIZE=20695 Mar 29 07:11:53 mail fetchmail[3045]: SMTP< 250 2.1.0 Ok I see no dot tickers. Frederic |
From: Matthias A. <mat...@gm...> - 2010-04-01 21:45:34
|
Am 29.03.2010, 09:25 Uhr, schrieb Frédéric Marchal: > On Sunday 28 March 2010, Matthias Andree wrote: >> (sorry for breaking the threading and the late reply, this message was >> lost >> in transit of eaten by my spam filter; I'm replying from the web >> archives >> where I lack message-id headers) >> >> Frédéric Marchal wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > I just noticed that the message printed in rfc822.c at line 76: >> > >> > if (outlevel >= O_DEBUG) >> > report_build(stdout, GT_("About to rewrite %s"), buf); >> > >> > doesn't end with a \n. The next message written at line 212 is >> therefore >> > concatenated with this one. >> >> That's bad and I think it's a bug. I think I'll fix it after the 6.3.15 >> release so as not to break the translations of this message. > > It only occurs when -vv is in the command line so it is really a trivial > issue. Fixed for me in <http://gitorious.org/fetchmail/fetchmail/commit/f333f5cf33a6acdaeb39f7c707ec82012063770f> >> > The same may be true for the message printed in driver.c starting at >> line >> > 619: >> > >> > report_build(stdout, GT_("reading message %s@%s:%d of %d"), >> > ctl->remotename, ctl->server.truename, >> > num, count); >> > >> > if (len > 0) >> > report_build(stdout, wholesize ? GT_(" (%d octets)") >> > >> > : GT_(" (%d header octets)"), len); >> > >> > In my log, it is concatenated with the above mentioned message. >> >> Can you show a sample for that? I think the LF is deliberately missing >> here, because we want to add the dots ticker, but OTOH if that's not >> going >> to be displayed, we do need the LF. > > The lines are going to be wrapped by the mailer so I add one additional > blank > line after each LF of the original log. > > Mar 29 07:11:53 mail fetchmail[3045]: lecture du message ww...@mm...:37 > parmi > 396 (20695 octets)#012Sur le point de réécrire Return-path: > <amb...@xr...>#015#012#012La version réécrite est Return-path: > <amb...@xr...>#015#012 > > Mar 29 07:11:53 mail fetchmail[3045]: Sur le point de réécrire From: > Barillo > Schoreplum <amb...@xr...>#015#012#012La version réécrite est From: > Barillo Schoreplum <amb...@xr...>#015#012 > > Mar 29 07:11:53 mail fetchmail[3045]: Sur le point de réécrire To: > Bansmer > Selis <lau...@wo...>#015#012#012La version réécrite est > To: > Bansmer Selis <lau...@wo...>#015#012 > > Mar 29 07:11:53 mail fetchmail[3045]: passage au travers de > lau...@wo... et coïncidence avec wowcompany.com > > Mar 29 07:11:53 mail fetchmail[3045]: réexpédition vers localhost > > Mar 29 07:11:53 mail fetchmail[3045]: SMTP> MAIL > FROM:<amb...@xr...> > SIZE=20695 > > Mar 29 07:11:53 mail fetchmail[3045]: SMTP< 250 2.1.0 Ok > > I see no dot tickers. That's OK. They're printed on console logs only, unless you force them with --showdots. I agree that there's still some intermixing of different topics in the logging, particularly of progress and debug logging - I know it's ugly, but there are bigger issues in the code, so I don't want to spend too much time here just now. -- Matthias Andree |