http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3383





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2004-05-16 01:53 -------
Subject: Re:  Folded message-id unrecognized

On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 06:26:27AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> About your comment to my second patch, I don't really understand what you 
> mean. The points of these patch are: 
> 1. Don't reinvent the wheel and do the header parsing in spamd.raw but use 
> Message.pm. That's trivial. 

Right, we agree on that.

> 2. Don't store two copies of the mail in the memory. Currently the mail is 
> first completely read into @msglines which is then copied inside the 
> Message.pm ctor. At that point, two copies of the mail exist in memory while 
> we theoretically only need one if we could just feed the incoming stuff 
> directly line-per-line to the Message.pm. That's what the anonymous 
> subroutine 
> is for. As that one also has to check for the size, I can't just feed the 
> ctor 
> a reference to $client->getline(). 

Well, a few things here.

1) The current method is cleaner.

2) I don't think the patch works.  It references non-global/non-local
variables in the anon-sub.  Not only that, but the variables it wants to
use really have no way of being passed in without mucking up the Message
API, which I don't want to do.

3) We should do an 'undef @msglines' after the parse.  The Message code
specifically wants to get a copy of the message for itself, since it'll
be messing with it during the parse.

4) Changing the M::SA::Message code in a non-trivial way is beyond this
ticket IMNSHO.


So what I was saying was we can easily put the parse before the use of
the message-id.  I was also commenting that we could probably put the
expected!=actual test before the message-id output, so we don't have
to worry about calling $mail->finish().  We can also undef the msglines
array to free up some memory during processing.





------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Reply via email to