On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Travis Bemann wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:00:15PM -0600, Mark J. Roberts wrote:
> > 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.
>
> On the whole *spool*?!?! That's gotta have massive performance
> problems on boxen such as mine where all mail is kept in the spool
> file and is not regularly deleted. My spool is massive. It contains
> about 15600 messages.
It threw NullPointerExceptions on anything more than a few dozen
messages. That was why I rewrote it the first time. Fortunately my Java
skills have improved since then, so I fixed the header problem in about 5
minutes.
I've only got 9000 messages, and Pine already takes a minute to load.
--
Mark Roberts
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
