Bug#308419: ITP: libytnef & ytnef
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 09:38:03PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> This kind of supersedes the tnef package in quality, IMO, so I'll be
> talking to the maintainer Nick Phillips about collaborating on this,
> though I already have packages ready.
> Debs are ready, and I'll be contacting Nick Phillips, maintainer of a
> similar (but IME inferior) package, about possible collaboration.
Missed you on IRC, it seems, but I'd say "go for it".
I took over tnef to make sure that it would be available and working properly
for use with mailscanner -- that basically involved adding a patch to make
sure that it would not expand arbitrarily large files if you didn't want it
to. At the moment, I'm pretty much completely uninvolved with mailscanner,
but will be talking to its author about the state of its TNEF support. He's
been recommending configuring mailscanner to use a perl tnef decoder for a
while I believe, but users might still want to use an external TNEF decoder.
Making it slightly more complicated, mailscanner needs to work with a tnef
decoder that is available on all sorts of platforms that Debian really doesn't
give a damn about.
My attitude to this has always been that tnef is an unfortunate but currently
necessary evil, and the sooner it goes away the better -- hence most of the
recent uploads of tnef being NMUs -- unless there is a compelling reason to
upgrade the Debian version, I certainly won't be rushing to it. I would also
be inclined to value stability over features.
So I guess you could say I'm here to ensure that tnef gets the kind of
neglect it deserves (but no more) ;-)
Now, if ytnef were to be usable as a drop-in replacement for tnef, I could
certainly consider "jumping ship" (or just turning up the volume on the
neglect bit). Alternatively, I may persuade the mailscanner author to support
So, we'll see, I guess. But in the meantime, go for it :-)
Whoops, no .sig