RE: CFPOP streamlining
You could always use CFX_POP3 to fix the utf-7 issue... http://www.web-architect.co.uk/downloads.cfm Paul [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: CFPOP streamlining
One thing that I came upon when using CFPOP and deciding which method to use, is that if you are using CFMX there is a nasty bug that deals with encoding. Check out http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg149313.html for some information. I know Raymond Camden also wrote about this bug on his blog. See it here: http://www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=437EFED9-B15B-8957-860C45AFE6E30A4D . Basically, if an email comes in with he unsupported encoding type, anytime you try to do a GETALL with CFPOP, it will break. The only way to recover is to delete the offending email some other way. Due to this bug, all of our CFPOP apps now describe your method of retrieving the headers, and then downloading each piece of email one at a time. Cedric Villat http://www.cornfeed.com Creators of CFTicket - A customer support, trouble ticket application > Subject: CFPOP streamlining > From: "James Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:06:12 +0100 > Thread: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm/method=messages&threadid=33372&forumid=4#167433 > > I have a template that retrieves mail and processes it to extract order > information using cfpop. At any one time it can be retrieving up to 300 > emails of which around 200 will be orders, the rest will be a mixture of > junk and correspondence aimed at the human who reads the account. > > I am currently doing a cfpop to retrieve the headers only, then looping over > these doing another cfpop for each to get the message body resulting in 200+ > pop connections in total. > > Would it be better to just do one connection, retrieve everything, and > simply ignore to 100 message bodies I am not interested in? > > -- > James Smith > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 15/06/2004 > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: CFPOP streamlining
In this case I am using MX, but that in useful information to be filed in the "for future reference" folder, cheers. > I'm not sure which version of CF you are using but on CF4.x/5 > the getheaderonly action actually retrieved the entire mail > although it didn't present it all in the query so for what > you are doing, a single pass is probably preferable under the > circumstances outlined above... I haven't really played with > CFPOP on CFMX that much to know it's nuances so this > information may or may not be correct when using CFMX [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: CFPOP streamlining
James I just had a look at the livedocs for CFMX http://livedocs.macromedia.com/coldfusion/6.1/htmldocs/tags-b14.htm#wp11 01854 (assuming you are on cfmx) and message number can actually be a comma separated list of all the messages you would like to retrieve, this should save you having to call cfpop for each email and allow you to re-use the connect. Not sure if the getHeaderOnly action correctly only gets the header but you can look at the commands being sent to the mail server in the mail logs which should give you some indication of what POP commands are being sent to the mail server HTH KOla -Original Message- From: James Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 June 2004 11:37 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: CFPOP streamlining Thanks, that is what I am in the process of doing now, I was more wondering if there were any protocol issues here where one method would be considered "more propper" than the other. _ From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 June 2004 11:32 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: CFPOP streamlining James you could well be right, it may actually be quicker to download and then ignore the additional emails as opposed to constantly opening/closing connections to the mail server - I would test both options and see which one performs better. Kola -Original Message- From: James Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 June 2004 11:06 To: CF-Talk Subject: CFPOP streamlining I have a template that retrieves mail and processes it to extract order information using cfpop. At any one time it can be retrieving up to 300 emails of which around 200 will be orders, the rest will be a mixture of junk and correspondence aimed at the human who reads the account. I am currently doing a cfpop to retrieve the headers only, then looping over these doing another cfpop for each to get the message body resulting in 200+ pop connections in total. Would it be better to just do one connection, retrieve everything, and simply ignore to 100 message bodies I am not interested in? -- James Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 15/06/2004 _ _ _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: CFPOP streamlining
I'm not sure which version of CF you are using but on CF4.x/5 the getheaderonly action actually retrieved the entire mail although it didn't present it all in the query so for what you are doing, a single pass is probably preferable under the circumstances outlined above... I haven't really played with CFPOP on CFMX that much to know it's nuances so this information may or may not be correct when using CFMX Paul [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: CFPOP streamlining
Thanks, that is what I am in the process of doing now, I was more wondering if there were any protocol issues here where one method would be considered "more propper" than the other. _ From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 June 2004 11:32 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: CFPOP streamlining James you could well be right, it may actually be quicker to download and then ignore the additional emails as opposed to constantly opening/closing connections to the mail server - I would test both options and see which one performs better. Kola -Original Message- From: James Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 June 2004 11:06 To: CF-Talk Subject: CFPOP streamlining I have a template that retrieves mail and processes it to extract order information using cfpop. At any one time it can be retrieving up to 300 emails of which around 200 will be orders, the rest will be a mixture of junk and correspondence aimed at the human who reads the account. I am currently doing a cfpop to retrieve the headers only, then looping over these doing another cfpop for each to get the message body resulting in 200+ pop connections in total. Would it be better to just do one connection, retrieve everything, and simply ignore to 100 message bodies I am not interested in? -- James Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 15/06/2004 _ _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: CFPOP streamlining
James you could well be right, it may actually be quicker to download and then ignore the additional emails as opposed to constantly opening/closing connections to the mail server - I would test both options and see which one performs better. Kola -Original Message- From: James Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 June 2004 11:06 To: CF-Talk Subject: CFPOP streamlining I have a template that retrieves mail and processes it to extract order information using cfpop. At any one time it can be retrieving up to 300 emails of which around 200 will be orders, the rest will be a mixture of junk and correspondence aimed at the human who reads the account. I am currently doing a cfpop to retrieve the headers only, then looping over these doing another cfpop for each to get the message body resulting in 200+ pop connections in total. Would it be better to just do one connection, retrieve everything, and simply ignore to 100 message bodies I am not interested in? -- James Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 15/06/2004 _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
