On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 00:11, Craig R Hughes wrote: > Matt Sergeant wrote: > > In favor of non-MIME::* solution: > > 1. If you're going to be implementing it, and you're more comfortable with the > other stuff... > 2. MIME::* is probably more generic, and therefore possibly less performant, or > less tailored generally for the exact thing we're wanting to do
I think the reason my stuff would work quite well is it's specifically designed to make it easy to get the known body text from the document, in the same way that an email client would. The MIME::* stuff seems more generic to me, so you'd have to code that stuff in as extra. > I don't think the RAM vs temp file is necessarily all that compelling, for one > because we're not talking about cranking huge files with giant multi-meg > attachments -- these will be size-limited MIME files. Secondly, it'll probably > cause more portability issues. Without looking at the code at all, I'd be > willing to bet that while linux performance is probably great, it'll be really > nasty on Windows, if it indeed works at all w/out modifications. It was written for Windows (it's actually part of O'Reilly's WebBoard (now Activa or some other wierd latin name), and I got permission to take that bit of code as my own, because I knew it would be useful in the future). Honestly, it would have to be your call - I'll send you the code so you can play with the API and see if it fits your mind-space. I'm not too likely to integrate it because we don't use this stuff in house to parse our emails - we have C code doing it which is beyond my control (we split all the emails up into separate files before passing them to our anti-virus, anti-spam, and anti-porn products). Matt.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
