Re: rewriting the getname() function again

From: Craig A Summerhill <craig_at_cni.org_at_hypermail-project.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 05:04:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <9904200904.AA03429_at_a.cni.org>

On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Daniel Stenberg <dast_at_sth.frontec.se> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Paul Haldane wrote:
> >
> > I have a from line that I reckon the parser handles wrongly
>
> Ah, you're right.
>
> I've changed it now to only scan for ()-comments if there was no <>-address
> found in the line.
>
> In a first glance, it seems to make your lines work better and I couldn't see
> any other examples fail because of it either.
>
> As soon as we have something here that might work, I'll add it to the
> hypermail parser and release a new tar-ball. Many problems will be solved
> with this.
>
> (Oh, right, the mime-decoding can be ignored by this parser since that'll be
> performed separatly before the function is called.)

Daniel,

I will send to you directly (and under separate cover) the OUTPUT of the fromparse.c program for you to review if you would like.

One comment, I noticed in a mailbox of 2765 messages that the program OUTPUT 5535 entries. Given this, I hope that this code doesn't reflect the programs ability to parse messages in a mailbox. I suspect that it picked up a few extra entries along the lines where people had embedded within a message a forwarded header such as this:

From: Craig A. Summerhill <craig_at_cni.org> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:30:00 -0500
Subject: something

Just thought I would check about this though. Otherwise, there is a counter problem in the code...

-- 

   Craig A. Summerhill, Systems Coordinator and Program Officer
   Coalition for Networked Information
   21 Dupont Circle, N.W., Washington, D.C.   20036
   Internet: craig_at_cni.org   AT&Tnet (202) 296-5098

Received on Tue 20 Apr 1999 11:05:04 AM GMT