On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:37:07 -0600, Jeffrey Ollie <jeff@ocjtech.us> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> >> Warning: Unexpected extra parts of multipart/signed. Indexing anyway.
> >
> > Oh, that's a warning I put in place because I wasn't sure if it was
> > legitimate for a multipart/signed message to have more than two
> > parts. I'd actually be interested to know if the mail is correct, (and I
> > should just eliminate the warning), or if the mail is somehow malformed
> > and the warning is correct.
> 
> No, I think it's legitimate to have multiple parts inside of a
> multipart/signed (just very rare).

OK. Then it sounds like the warning flagged an actual bug.

What the code is trying to do is simply to avoid indexing the signature
part. It's currently doing this by skipping the second part of a
multipart/signed message. Perhaps instead it should just be skipping the
final part? (It appears that that would be correct given the example
message.)

> Yes, all of those appear to not be complete mail messages, why they
> are in one of my IMAP servers remains to be seen.

OK. I'll let you puzzle that piece out.

> Unfortunately I deleted the database and am in the process of
> recreating it with the verbose flag turned on.  So far the problem has
> not occurred again.  So if there's a real bug somewhere I'm wondering
> if there isn't a timing-related component to it.

Alright. Well, let us know if things go wrong again.

-Carl