Hey Scott and Jonathan, On Thu, 28 May 2020 13:56:59 -0400 (EDT) Scott Talbert <s...@techie.net> wrote: > On Tue, 26 May 2020, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > >> archivemail seems to be a good candidate to RM due to dead upstream. > >> However, it still has a relatively high popcon, so people seem to be using > >> it. > >> > >> I'm willing to take a stab at porting to Python 3 if anyone is available to > >> test it? The port effort doesn't look that bad at first glance, but I > >> don't use this package. > > > > I'm happy to test anything you produce, but I'd warn you that I think > > it's quite a significant piece of work. From what I remember when I last > > looked at hacking a feature into it (#736327), archivemail uses the > > older of two different APIs provided by the python "mailbox" library, > > and only the newer one was carried forward to Python 3. So moving away > > from that older API is a big part of the work. > > You were right. This was harder than I expected. :) Mainly it is > exactly as you described - the rfc822.Message class (which doesn't exist > in Python 3) does not map exactly to the email.message.Message class. I'm > stuck at the moment with figuring out how to calculate the message size. > In rfc822.Message, you could access the file handle directly and get the > size that way.
do you have any plan on completing this port? I'm not a user of archivemail but it looks like it should be removed, not salvaged: * no new upstream releases since 2011 (!) * last upload to debian in 2014 * retired from fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1777616 maybe it's time to let it go? If i dont hear otherwise in a week, i'll file for its removal Regards, -- Sandro "morph" Tosi My website: http://sandrotosi.me/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi
