Re: Derrivative code
On 13/07/14 19:50, Ricardo Signes wrote: * Matijs van Zuijlen mat...@matijs.net [2014-07-13T07:17:39] - Email::Sender is more dangerous: if through a programming error an undefined transport is passed to sendmail(), it will happily try to send the mail you were trying to save locally via SMTP. Don't use Email::Sender::Simple, use the Mbox (or whatever) transport directly. Thanks, that's a lot easier in this case. - Email::Sender::Transport::Mbox will not accept messages without a sender, whereas Email::LocalDelivery does allow this. Don't you need a sender for the From_ line? Pass an empty string as needed..? Yes, using the transport directly makes that easier too. Thanks for the hints. I got it all working nicely. Regards, -- Matijs signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Derrivative code
On 07/07/14 03:49, Ricardo Signes wrote: * Geoffrey Leach ge...@hughes.net [2014-07-05T18:30:19] I'm at work on MH.pm, which I hope to submit to CPAN as Email::LocalDelivery:MH.pm. The code is based on Email::LocalDelivery::Maildir.pm Question, in such a case is there a preference for maintaining the format, naming conventions, etc. of the original code? I don't think it matters, as long as the interface is compatible. FWIW, I am soon going to abandon maintenance of Email::LocalDelivery. I only have one line of code still using it. For all other things, I now use Email::Sender. I've just attempted to convert some code from using Email::LocalDelivery to Email::Sender, and I encountered two problems: - Email::Sender is more dangerous: if through a programming error an undefined transport is passed to sendmail(), it will happily try to send the mail you were trying to save locally via SMTP. - Email::Sender::Transport::Mbox will not accept messages without a sender, whereas Email::LocalDelivery does allow this. Do you have any thoughts on how to overcome these two issues? Regards, -- Matijs signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Derrivative code
* Geoffrey Leach ge...@hughes.net [2014-07-05T18:30:19] I'm at work on MH.pm, which I hope to submit to CPAN as Email::LocalDelivery:MH.pm. The code is based on Email::LocalDelivery::Maildir.pm Question, in such a case is there a preference for maintaining the format, naming conventions, etc. of the original code? I don't think it matters, as long as the interface is compatible. FWIW, I am soon going to abandon maintenance of Email::LocalDelivery. I only have one line of code still using it. For all other things, I now use Email::Sender. -- rjbs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
