On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Travis Bemann wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 10:31:27PM -0600, Mark J. Roberts wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Brandon wrote:
> >
> > > > It gets worse. Date: is not always the first header. Ian's mail client
> > > > puts Date: AFTER the Subject: header. I guess that means I can't assume
> > > > any order at all. Ah well, it just means I'll have to check if every line
> > > > starts with every header. Yuck.
> > >
> > > Why do you care what order the mail headers come in? A mail message just
> > > has a bunch of headers followed by a blank line.
> >
> > I stupidly thought there was a consistent order to them. A couple days ago
> > I cribbed a mail parser from some kid's school project. It made the same
> > stupid assumption. (I guess I got what I deserved for assuming that other
> > people's code is valid.)
>
> That kid must have not had a clue what he or she was doing. It's
> pretty fucking obvious that mail header order is supposed to be
> freeform.
I wrote one in under an hour that was one-fifth the size. He used a
StringTokenizer for no good reason. On the whole spool.
I looked through a few dozen messages before I began. They all had the
same header format. That's because they were in sent-mail!
Stupid.
--
Mark Roberts
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
