From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10162207DF for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2016 03:48:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755349AbcIQDsW (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2016 23:48:22 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:60669 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755467AbcIQDsV (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2016 23:48:21 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B6BF40E63; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 23:48:19 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=6Mbm0xPzlbHhomMASlSS2QlzLfM=; b=EtJE/p d5p0lrhVBYN5a0wkQtjL/GjkrFSCq3NbblI8t9ALDjBLzFZGkn9C9L7jz4XUjIN9 nRDTbH/Hi+bIy4ad1S9oGLtT8sFcB2N3Y5SR2jartl6SKNjVMPSKuH1uwfJbhzgk lL1g7kTJbMfHIRJXYV4TB74E9oDQFctyVLFBM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=ZOX5pN0ahp1pRDcXhEZWpACvAxcgmJV3 UZZIK5V7EBJaaaE1hhKbtzvnisVsI/MDvobKX3Jc6mxCGG2tyr8FwuCJ5jbLScRw HPQMYL5JLPEnh6Xi//WnkPY4FWjyJV4JmB5I0XQRWUDEj9azeSFTyEvLMtPYFSko 2pcQ8WXwTxs= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7125240E62; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 23:48:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED08640E61; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 23:48:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/3] mailinfo: correct malformed test example References: <20160907063819.dd7aulnlsytcuyqj@sigill.intra.peff.net> <5dbb0b0f64906fd18c217908cd2c04e74d80fa68.1474047135.git.jonathantanmy@google.com> <2bfc2fc7-f16b-6d51-7353-54d38353464a@google.com> <3a27685f-a53b-03a7-93d5-0492638faf51@google.com> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 20:48:16 -0700 In-Reply-To: <3a27685f-a53b-03a7-93d5-0492638faf51@google.com> (Jonathan Tan's message of "Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:31:44 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 926504D4-7C89-11E6-AB2B-096F12518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: > From: bogosity > - a list > - of stuff > > Unchanged, the subsequent patch would break this test because it would > interpret that as a multi-line "From" in-body header when in-body > headers are *not* disabled. Yes, that is totally expected. So I would be perfectly fine if your patch changed the test vector for that case, saying "Allowing a folded in-body header means the expected result for the above three lines has to change".