http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4176
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-06 17:14 ------- Subject: Re: [review] RFE: please add pattern for nate.com redirector -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > This may be a good time to change get_uri_list(). +1 > If it's called with no parameters, return what we currently do (array of > uris). If it's called with some new parameter, return a > uri_detail-esque hash which includes both HTML and parsed URIs > (trivial). Change URIBL plugin to use that new get_uri_list() call. - -1. If we do this, one of the formats should be a *new* API -- having an API become modal depending on the presence of an argument, especially if the modality depends on if the arg is undef or not, is bad design. (why is the "undef or not" model a bad idea? because it's too easy to accidentally mistype something and accidentally wind up passing undef in as the arg -- leaving you scratching your head as to why the function has returned the wrong data... we've seen this with "setter" APIs that seem to do nothing because the data was accidentally undef.) A better idea is just to *add* a new form of the API as a new method. Aside from the above -- can someone explain why this is going to require a new API? what's wrong with putting redirector-stripping into the existing one, since we already do it there anyway for all the other redirector formats? > Have get_uri_list() do the full gambit > of redirection, skip it in > uri_list_canonify(). +1 > Heck, skip the whole canonification step in HTML. +1 ;) - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFCfAhmMJF5cimLx9ARAvTiAJ9UGbloE4s7/D1fBTDxRUi4LO2HWACgmQ3M unZ75f/NnD+usjZVbP3ovEo= =d65F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
