Joaquin Cuenca Abela e98cu...@gmail.com added the comment:
Thanks David and Barry!
As much as it flatters my ego to be in the first place is MISC/ACK, I have to
confess that my family name is Cuenca Abela, Cuenca is not a middle name.
Cheers,
--
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
Your patch looks good, thank you.
I just realized that Barry isn't nosy on this issue. I've checked, and the
code in question dates back to email version 1.0...code of that long standing
that exists specifically to implement the
Joaquin Cuenca Abela e98cu...@gmail.com added the comment:
Unfortunately the only way that I can see to reliably work around this is to
bypass entirely get_payload, in this case fixing this bug will not affect
people that do that negatively.
Some people may have more control over their
Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org added the comment:
Thanks for adding me to the nosy list. Yep, this code is pretty old so it
doesn't surprise me that its implementation isn't quite right. Of course, I
hate get_payload(decode=True) anyway and hope that goes away in email 6.
Having said
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
OK, patch (with comment tweaks to refer to this issue), and email minor version
bump, applied to trunk in r78778. It turns out that bdecode was already
deleted in email 5 in py3k. I did port the test in r78780.
Thanks Joaquin Cuenca
Joaquin Cuenca Abela e98cu...@gmail.com added the comment:
Hi,
I've never before made a patch to Python, so take it with care.
A couple of comments, I reused a test where all the attachments contained an
ending newline, except for the base64 one (conveniently...)
I think the comment in
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
Thanks for working on this.
For the most part your patch looks fine. Two comments: (1) it concerns me that
by co-opting the existing test, we are no longer testing that decoding does not
introduce a spurious newline :). (2) I think we
Joaquin Cuenca Abela e98cu...@gmail.com added the comment:
I added a new subpart to msg_10.txt, that keeps the previous test and also
tests the new behavior. Let me know if it's ok like this or if you still prefer
to create a different msg file for testing this.
Thanks,
--
versions:
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment:
Ah, I misunderstood, and did not see that the newline in question was inside
the base64 string. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.
Would either of you like to propose a patch, including a test case?
(I've removed 2.5 because it is
Changes by R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com:
--
versions: -Python 3.0
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue7143
___
___
10 matches
Mail list logo
