On 7/4/06, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 7/4/06, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > To be clear, AFAIK, there was never a patch for mod_mbox -- it was a
>> > Ruby file that only solved part of the problem. Again, AFAIK, no one
>> > ever wrote a patch in C for mod_mbox to attempt to resolve this issue.
>>
>> I offered. The response was, and I quote, "Erm, no".
>
> The "Erm, no" was in response to the approach, not the offer to help, IIRC.
>
> If you're willing to fix the problem the right way, by adding real
> support for character sets to mod_mbox, I'm sure nobody would have a
> problem with that.
You chose to snip the portion where I argue that the approach I outlined
is necessary, at least as a fall-back/safety net. Care to explain why
such a fall-back/safety net isn't necessary or appropriate?
No argument that it's necessary, but it seems kind of pointless to fix
that part without fixing the underlying fact that mod_mbox is totally
ignorant of character sets. You'll get perfectly "valid" junk in the
vast majority of cases, that doesn't seem like a real step forward to
me.
-garrett
