[Sorry Stephen, wrong key...] On Mittwoch, 8. Juni 2016 23:42:31 you wrote: > Hans-Peter Jansen writes: > > Dear audience, > > > > when coming back to this list, I couldn't believe my eyes because > > of the low volume level, but after rechecking with the archives, I > > have to accept, it is that quiet here, a bit too quiet from my > > POV. Hmm. > > It's just that very few people (one or two) are working on the module > and in my experience it has been rock-solid compared to either Python > 2.7 email or the package distributed with Mailman 2.1. I doubt very > many people are using Python 3 email on high-volume mailstreams yet, > as the high-performance networking (eg, Twisted) and perhaps some > other libraries were late to be ported.
Good to know, at least, I'm not alone. > > I was quite astonished to find out, that this procedure isn't > > working that well anymore: the email module appears way more > > sensible in the current state. This is a bit disappointing, as > > reading the docs conveys, that some effort was put into reliability > > and robustness. Given the much improved unicode handling of Python > > 3 itself and the ever improving experience in handling emails, this > > is contrary to my expectations, I have to confess. > > It's a complete rewrite from first principles. It's more robust in > principle and more maintainable in practice, but faced with 100s of > millions of emails (aka "tsunami of sewage"), the robustness can't be > guaranteed. I'm willing to bet it will converge to "robust in > practice" much faster than the previous design did. I will take your word on that. As Barry and David pointed out, some issues probably vanish by simply using compat32 policy right now. > > Does somebody care? > > email 5 for Python 3 is a complete rewrite from first principles. > Yes, somebody cared. Well, there's some light at the end of the tunnel. Good to know. > > Am I missing something? > > Patience and understanding of how opensource software development > works, perhaps. Okay, as already said, I'm sorry for sounding overly harsh. Usually, when I report such problems nowadays, I add a patch proposal for fixing the issue, but these issues were overwhelming me. Needless to mention the complexity of the email package itself and my reluctance of studying RFCs. Cheers, Pete _______________________________________________ Email-SIG mailing list Email-SIG@python.org Your options: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/email-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
