gyepi at praxis-sw.com
Sun Dec 29 23:56:27 EST 2002
On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 11:41:11PM -0500, David Relson wrote:
> At 11:26 PM 12/29/02, Gyepi SAM wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 04:28:19AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> >Yes. If we are going to do MIME, it needs to be able to handle
> >all valid mime constructs
> >(in addition to many invalid ones whenever possible);
> For classifying spam, I think some details can be glossed over. For
> example, 8 bit data in a 7 bit message is incorrect but since we need to be
> tolerant ...
You're right. We don't need to be too strict, but we do need to handle
the large variety of possible mime combinations correctly.
> >> BTW: it's not exactly helpful to mix parsing boundary= parameters and
> >> --BOUNDARY treatment in the same function, it makes the API ugly. The
> >> boundary= treatment belongs into the Content-Type: parser,
> >I have actually changed this in my private copy...
> I admit that I implemented the first thing I thought of and released it. A
> little more thought suggests two functions, perhaps named set_boundary()
> and check_boundary(). What did you do? If it's good, lay it on us :-)
Well, it's really a small change.
I moved the boundary setting code into a routine called set_mime_boundary()
and changed the call from lexer.l. The mime_boundary() routine now just
checks boundaries and pushes new mime parts unto the stack. It will
change further to also pop parts off the stack when we encounter their closing
More information about the Bogofilter-dev