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

Bug#308419: ITP: libytnef & ytnef



Hey Nick,

On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:11:31PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> 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.

Where's this perl tnef decoder? Is it superior?

> 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.

The reason I'm using ytnef is because it has the ability to handle RTF
message bodies within winmail.dat, which your tnef doesn't seem to be
able to handle. If the Perl one is somehow packaged already and I've
missed it, I'd love to use that if it's equally functional because more
packages = suck.

> 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
> ytnef directly.

There's a little Perl script that works as a filter to process messages
with winmail.dat attachments and attach the correct stuff as real MIME
attachments, including the RTF bodies, spitting the corrected message
back on stdout. If that's what you need for mailscanner, well, there it
is.

-- 
Joshua Kwan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: