On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 06:34:31PM +0200, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2011 13:56:29 +0200, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> > I inclined to merge this patch if it's still needed (thinking about the
> > very last imaplib2 improvements around log). Should I?
>
> Difficult call :-). If we turn
On Sat, 7 May 2011 13:56:29 +0200, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> I inclined to merge this patch if it's still needed (thinking about the
> very last imaplib2 improvements around log). Should I?
Difficult call :-). If we turn off the extremely verbose imaplib2 debug,
we don't get the full messages in t
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 11:56:28PM +0200, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2011 20:18:24 +0200, Nicolas Sebrecht
> wrote:
> I agree that it would be nicer.
> But that would entail some content analysis of each and every email
> that we handle. I don't want to think about the performance i
On Thu, 5 May 2011 20:18:24 +0200, Nicolas Sebrecht
wrote:
> > Only output the first and last 100 bytes of each message body to the
> > debug log (we still get the full body from imaplib2 logging). This
> > limits privacy issues when handing the log to someone else, but usually
> > still contains
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:00:01PM +0200, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
>
> We were outputting full message bodies to the debug log (often stderr),
> and then again (as they go over the imaplib2 wire, imaplib logs
> everything too). Not only is quite a privacy issue when sending in debug
> logs but it c
5 matches
Mail list logo
