On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:01:17 -0700, "Jason R. Mastaler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding the above comment about a missing or corrupted Date header. > > Does this make any sense to you Greg? I hope tmda-cgi isn't trying to > parse the Date header in the message to determine anything > useful. Most spam messages contain bogus Date headers. Yup. I'm seeing that. > A more reliable method would be to use the first portion of the > pending filename (e.g, 1044821162) as this is the time when the > message was written to disk. I parse the date information for *display purposes only* when generating the list of pending e-mails. I do the sort on the pending filename (well, actually the list is sorted for me by Pending.py), so that part works fine regardless of the value and format of the date header. I considered converting the filename into a date and using that instead, but I decided against it. The way I look at it, by putting up "None" when I am unable to parse the date, it gives the user one more clue that the e-mail is probably not worth reading. That's my thinking at least. Let me know if you guys would rather have a generated date, as it would be pretty simple to change. Gre7g. _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
