On Jun 16, 2013, at 03:42 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: >Barry Warsaw writes: > > > I know this is a little backwards, but it's probably the best match > > for the current rule/chain model. > >I have a smallish problem with this model. Specifically, for a list >with a maximum size, I think it's probably desirable to do any MIME >part stripping *before* the size test. But this doesn't fit the >chain(s) -> pipeline model AFAICS. I suspect there are probably other >such cases where a bit of preprocessing would be useful, in particular >if we implement a reencryption facility as Abhilash originally >proposed.
It's a valid complaint. What I've suggested in the past is that a rule can do some *nondestructive* processing of a message before it makes its decision. The rule would either throw out the results of the processing (possibly leading to duplication of work) or would cache the results, e.g. in the metadata dictionary (possibly leading to a rather large pickle/in-memory data). It's not great, but I still like the separation of concerns and the general concept that rules don't modify the message. To do otherwise introduces ordering dependency on the rules, which I really want to avoid. Ordering dependency on handlers can't be helped I think. I'm certainly open to ideas here, especially if this becomes more prevalent. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
