On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:27:06 -0400
Tim Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 07:58:17AM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:38:02 -0400 Tim Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> So far I've found that it works, yes, and it even makes a valiant
>> effort, however its reformatting of text/plains after removal of
>> the text/html (often the margins etc are screwed) has left
>> something to be desired.
> If you're actually trying to render text/html into text/plain, I
> can see how that could be a problem.
Aye, I've been runging into a few users who ar unable to send
anything other than text/HTML (no text/plain or
multipart/alternative).
> But in a multipart/alternative message, there should already be a
> text/plain portion already prepared for you. All you have to do
> is remove the extraneous bits. It's not your fault if the
> poster's mail program screwed up the formatting on that one. :-)
Umm, for my largest list actually it is my fault. I let the message
through with the screwed up formatting rather than
bouncing/rejecting which I do for text/plain posters with seriously
screwed formatting.
<<Mutters to mimself about why he runs over the held* files in
~/data with XEmacs before moderating any posts>>
> I was thinking of Rachel Blackman's NORM library for Listar. I
> haven't used it personally, but it looks sufficiently
> general-purpose that you could wrap a little code around it to
> jump through whatever hoops you need to demangle the HTML.
> ftp://listar.org/pub/listar/other/norm-0.1.tar.gz
<bow> Thanks -- need to look into this.
> For the specific case of extracting only the text/plain portion
> from multipart/alternative, I wrote an `unhtml' program for our
> site that works quite well. It's packaged as a single file of C
> source code, but doesn't depend on any exotic foreign libraries
> and ought to compile on just about any machine with an ANSI
> compiler and library. I'm lazy and haven't gotten around to
> putting it up for FTP, but I can mail it to you if you want to
> play around with it.
Thanks.
> Since both of these tools are written in C, they ought to place
> less load on your machine than a Perl-based tool, if you have big
> active lists or an overburdened server.
Load at this point is not a problem. The systems at present are way
over muscled for their task -- I only shove small millions of
messages a day, and the majority of them are hand moderated so I can
control the bustiness and timing of the traffic.
--
J C Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--
