[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: good procmail alternative?


* Walt Mankowski <waltman@pobox.com> [02-12-07 15:23]:
>On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:04:20PM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote:
>> Duh. Now that I think of it, what is the reason to use MIME anyway?
>The person who added that code wanted to do filtering based on MIME
>attachments, e.g. disallow attachments, only allow certain types of
>attachments, etc.  The problem is, the module it's using to parse MIME
>messages sometimes reformats paragraphs, and that breaks GPG
>signatures.  It really shouldn't have ever been released with that
>option turned on by default.

So the problem seems to be that the mail is changed, not that some
option is activated by default. (Though I agree that it shouldn't.)

>> >> It also seems to be unsupported.
>> >
>> >It's been a while since the last release, but it is still being
>> >supported.
>> I sent fixes for two small bugs to the bug tracker a year ago, but got
>> no answer (It's still unfiled in fact). You can't get much more
>> unsupported.
>There have been a lot of changes to it in CVS (some of them by me!),
>but you're right that's it's been a long time since the last release,
>and that no one's monitoring the bug tracker.

I don't particularly need a release, but you should at least fix the
bugs for which the fixes are included in the bug report.

>> Good info, thanks. I will see whether I can get a reply there.
>Hopefully the fact that Simon has started up that mailing list is an
>indication that he wants to jumpstart support for the module.

I sure hope this. The broken signature is a complete showstopper.

I propose we leave math to the machines and go play outside.
    - Calvin

Attachment: pgpCGQqN0nYBG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: