Tim Legant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No. My thought was only to write a Generator subclass for TMDA > until email handles it correctly.
Would it really be that much more work to fix this in email, so that everyone (including us) benefits? I've tried to do this whenever possible. If you read the mimelib-devel list, you'll see that TMDA has actually driven the majority of the changes/bugfixes in the email package over the past year or so. In other words, email may never handle it correctly if we don't give them the impetus to do so. > Several other small things were affected by the change to > HeaderParser and were not updated to take advantage of the fact that > we use HeaderParser. Yeah I know. I had thought about investigating these when I changed over to HeaderParser, but was so burned out on the email package I just kept putting it off. > Ok, so I got carried away and wrote it while composing this message. Sometimes it works out that way. It takes more time to explain something than to actually code it. :-) > As I commented above, there are a few small things in TMDA that > could also be changed to take advantage of the fact that we now use > HeaderGenerator, but the above 5 lines are the bulk of fixing this > bug. If you want to work on any of these, that would be great. It would probably give some speedup to the delivery process. > This would allow TMDA to work with valid messages rather than > bombing out on every attempted delivery of those messages until they > finally disappear from the queue. I assume you meant invalid messages? _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
