On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Matthew Cline wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 March 2002 03:02 pm, dman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:34:23PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
>> | On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Daniel Rogers wrote:
>> | > I guess this would mean having to recurse through all the mime
>> | > parts?
>
>> | Yes. This is now bugzilla #115.
>
>> Does perl not have an existing (stable) library to do all of the
>> dirty work of mail parsing and decoding?
>
> I think that we wanted to avoid a dependancy on any of the Perl MIME
> modules.
I am curious to your reasoning here -- do you /really/ think that it's
better to reinvent the MIME parsing wheel, one of the less trivial
formats out there, than to depend on the libraries?
Is it the additional packages requiring installation? Performance with a
real MIME parser? Added complexity? The modules are less than reliable?
Daniel
--
I was part of that strange race of people aptly described as spending their
lives doing things they detest to make money they don't want to buy things
they don't need to impress people they dislike.
-- Emile Henry Gauvreay
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
