Tim Legant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'll file a bug report with a diff to let the list determine if > there are any obvious problems.
Cool, I saw that, thanks. Hopefully he will respond soon, as I'd like to get a fixed version of TMDA to the gnu.org folks ASAP. > It hasn't been a problem. Nothing's broken, just (sometimes) > inefficient. Yeah, that's why I've let is slip by the wayside. Efficiency improvements are nice though. > I can look at this stuff after I make my suggestion to the mimelib > group. Great. > So what I was trying to say (obviously not too clearly!) was that > both Cory's and Paul's reports were of valid messages (Content-Type: > message/*) that TMDA/email choked on and that the correct Generator > sub-class would allow them to work. Wow, ok. Your explanation makes sense, but Barry's first comment in the tracker threw me off. It sounded like he was saying that the offending messages did NOT contain a valid MIME structure. I understand the problem (really, a deficiency in the email package) better now, thanks. _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
