From rdmurray at bitdance.com Mon May 2 18:23:45 2011 From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray) Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 12:23:45 -0400 Subject: [Email-SIG] headers everywhere Message-ID: <20110502162346.4AB2525013D@mailhost.webabinitio.net> I just posted a new blog post: http://www.bitdance.com/blog/2011/05/02_01_Email6_Headers_Everywhere/ This describes the work I did two weeks ago on the Headers-as-string-objects idea we talked about here a couple months ago. (Last week, as I mention in the blog post, I was otherwise tied up and got no email6 coding done :( If anyone has time to read it and give feedback on the API decision I'm outlining there, that would be great :). I may change my mind about some things as I implement more, but so far I'm liking the way this is turning out. --David From barry at python.org Mon May 2 19:12:43 2011 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 13:12:43 -0400 Subject: [Email-SIG] headers everywhere In-Reply-To: <20110502162346.4AB2525013D@mailhost.webabinitio.net> References: <20110502162346.4AB2525013D@mailhost.webabinitio.net> Message-ID: <20110502131243.4d956a39@neurotica.wooz.org> On May 02, 2011, at 12:23 PM, R. David Murray wrote: >I just posted a new blog post: > > http://www.bitdance.com/blog/2011/05/02_01_Email6_Headers_Everywhere/ > >This describes the work I did two weeks ago on the Headers-as-string-objects >idea we talked about here a couple months ago. (Last week, as I mention >in the blog post, I was otherwise tied up and got no email6 coding done :( > >If anyone has time to read it and give feedback on the API decision I'm >outlining there, that would be great :). I may change my mind about >some things as I implement more, but so far I'm liking the way this >is turning out. Very interesting, thanks for the post! Although I haven't played with your branch yet, the API looks pretty reasonable to me. I'm interested to see how your dynamic header classes feature works out. Mailman has its own Message subclass and I agree that a traditional class-based hierarchy makes using this kind of a pain. -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tokio.kikuchi at gmail.com Tue May 3 03:01:33 2011 From: tokio.kikuchi at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?6I+K5Zyw5pmC5aSr?=) Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 10:01:33 +0900 Subject: [Email-SIG] headers everywhere In-Reply-To: <20110502162346.4AB2525013D@mailhost.webabinitio.net> References: <20110502162346.4AB2525013D@mailhost.webabinitio.net> Message-ID: <4DBF53ED.7060505@gmail.com> (11/05/03 1:23), R. David Murray wrote: > I just posted a new blog post: > > http://www.bitdance.com/blog/2011/05/02_01_Email6_Headers_Everywhere/ Hi David, Good work. One point, =?utf-8?q?c2VrcmV0IGMwZGU=?= should be =?utf-8?b?c2VrcmV0IGMwZGU=?=. 'q' is for 'quoted-printable' and not 'base64'. Cheers, -- Tokio Kikuchi, tokio.kikuchi at gmail.com From rdmurray at bitdance.com Tue May 3 03:31:56 2011 From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray) Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 21:31:56 -0400 Subject: [Email-SIG] headers everywhere In-Reply-To: <4DBF53ED.7060505@gmail.com> References: <20110502162346.4AB2525013D@mailhost.webabinitio.net> <4DBF53ED.7060505@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20110503013157.5325E250C85@webabinitio.net> On Tue, 03 May 2011 10:01:33 +0900, =?UTF-8?B?6I+K5Zyw5pmC5aSr?= wrote: > (11/05/03 1:23), R. David Murray wrote: > > I just posted a new blog post: > > > > http://www.bitdance.com/blog/2011/05/02_01_Email6_Headers_Everywhere/ > > Hi David, > > Good work. One point, =?utf-8?q?c2VrcmV0IGMwZGU=?= should be > =?utf-8?b?c2VrcmV0IGMwZGU=?=. 'q' is for 'quoted-printable' and not > 'base64'. Heh. Thanks. Probably if I tried to run the doctests I'd find other bugs :( --David From rdmurray at bitdance.com Mon May 16 22:24:21 2011 From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:24:21 -0400 Subject: [Email-SIG] headers everywhere In-Reply-To: <4DCEFFFE.2000508@g.nevcal.com> References: <20110502162346.4AB2525013D@mailhost.webabinitio.net> <4DCEFFFE.2000508@g.nevcal.com> Message-ID: <20110516202422.95B0F250045@webabinitio.net> On Sat, 14 May 2011 15:19:42 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote: > Looks great, conceptually. My only quibble is with the names > .source_value and .decoded: the names are clear, but lengthy (in > combination with stuff before the .). Other possibilities: > > .source_value: .orig .src .wf (wire format) > > .decoded: .value .dec .r (readable) > > On the other hand, it is only a quibble: I'm likely to only use this API > with email6 policies. In a previous iteration of the API 'decoded' was indeed 'value', but I seem to have lost sight of that in the forest of the implementation :). On the other hand, source_value is the best description I could come up with. I started out with 'raw', but it isn't. It isn't 'wire format' for the same reason: it could come from either a bytes/wire format input, or from a unicode input. I'd be fine with 'orig', 'source' or 'src', and I don't really care what it is. The only code that should be accessing that attribute in the normal course of business is a generator. Feel free to bikeshed about it :) I will rename 'decoded' to 'value'. -- R. David Murray http://www.bitdance.com From v+python at g.nevcal.com Mon May 16 22:31:47 2011 From: v+python at g.nevcal.com (Glenn Linderman) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 13:31:47 -0700 Subject: [Email-SIG] headers everywhere In-Reply-To: <20110516202422.95B0F250045@webabinitio.net> References: <20110502162346.4AB2525013D@mailhost.webabinitio.net> <4DCEFFFE.2000508@g.nevcal.com> <20110516202422.95B0F250045@webabinitio.net> Message-ID: <4DD189B3.6020604@g.nevcal.com> On 5/16/2011 1:24 PM, R. David Murray wrote: > On Sat, 14 May 2011 15:19:42 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote: >> Looks great, conceptually. My only quibble is with the names >> .source_value and .decoded: the names are clear, but lengthy (in >> combination with stuff before the .). Other possibilities: >> >> .source_value: .orig .src .wf (wire format) >> >> .decoded: .value .dec .r (readable) >> >> On the other hand, it is only a quibble: I'm likely to only use this API >> with email6 policies. > In a previous iteration of the API 'decoded' was indeed 'value', but I > seem to have lost sight of that in the forest of the implementation :). > > On the other hand, source_value is the best description I could come up > with. I started out with 'raw', but it isn't. It isn't 'wire format' > for the same reason: it could come from either a bytes/wire format > input, or from a unicode input. I'd be fine with 'orig', 'source' or > 'src', and I don't really care what it is. The only code that should be > accessing that attribute in the normal course of business is a generator. > Feel free to bikeshed about it :) > > I will rename 'decoded' to 'value'. Given than, 'orig' or 'src' bubble to the top of my list of preferences. Seems like in modes with mixed email library versions, these are recommended for regular use, possibly beyond generators, so that's why their length stuck out to me as a possible issue. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rdmurray at bitdance.com Mon May 16 22:40:40 2011 From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:40:40 -0400 Subject: [Email-SIG] question on syntax of 'group' in address-list Message-ID: <20110516204041.A8316250045@webabinitio.net> I've gone through the RFCs and done some additional googling, and haven't been able to confirm the answer to this question: what exactly is the syntax when a group is included in an address-list? (See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.4). The question is, if another address follows the group, are they separated from each other by ';' or by ';,'? The ABNF seems to call for the latter, but I can't find any example showing it. I'm sure that I should accept both on input, but I'd like to generate the correct form. Does anyone have confirmation or contradiction for my interpretation? -- R. David Murray http://www.bitdance.com From phd at phdru.name Mon May 16 22:52:29 2011 From: phd at phdru.name (Oleg Broytman) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 00:52:29 +0400 Subject: [Email-SIG] headers everywhere In-Reply-To: <20110516202422.95B0F250045@webabinitio.net> References: <20110502162346.4AB2525013D@mailhost.webabinitio.net> <4DCEFFFE.2000508@g.nevcal.com> <20110516202422.95B0F250045@webabinitio.net> Message-ID: <20110516205229.GA15286@iskra.aviel.ru> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:24:21PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote: > I'd be fine with 'orig', 'source' or > 'src', and I don't really care what it is. [skip] > I will rename 'decoded' to 'value'. My votes are for 'source' and 'value'. Oleg. -- Oleg Broytman http://phdru.name/ phd at phdru.name Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. From barry at python.org Mon May 16 22:59:10 2011 From: barry at python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:59:10 -0400 Subject: [Email-SIG] headers everywhere In-Reply-To: <20110516205229.GA15286@iskra.aviel.ru> References: <20110502162346.4AB2525013D@mailhost.webabinitio.net> <4DCEFFFE.2000508@g.nevcal.com> <20110516202422.95B0F250045@webabinitio.net> <20110516205229.GA15286@iskra.aviel.ru> Message-ID: <20110516165910.14e86f56@neurotica.wooz.org> On May 17, 2011, at 12:52 AM, Oleg Broytman wrote: >On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:24:21PM -0400, R. David Murray wrote: >> I'd be fine with 'orig', 'source' or >> 'src', and I don't really care what it is. >[skip] >> I will rename 'decoded' to 'value'. > > My votes are for 'source' and 'value'. +1 -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: From glenn at nevcal.com Mon May 16 23:56:35 2011 From: glenn at nevcal.com (Glenn Linderman) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:56:35 -0700 Subject: [Email-SIG] question on syntax of 'group' in address-list In-Reply-To: <20110516204041.A8316250045@webabinitio.net> References: <20110516204041.A8316250045@webabinitio.net> Message-ID: <4DD19D93.1020600@nevcal.com> On 5/16/2011 1:40 PM, R. David Murray wrote: > I've gone through the RFCs and done some additional googling, > and haven't been able to confirm the answer to this question: what > exactly is the syntax when a group is included in an address-list? (See > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.4). The question is, if > another address follows the group, are they separated from each other by > ';' or by ';,'? The ABNF seems to call for the latter, but I can't find > any example showing it. I'm sure that I should accept both on input, > but I'd like to generate the correct form. Does anyone have confirmation > or contradiction for my interpretation? The only instance of group syntax that I have ever seen used is when a message has all Bcc: recipients, and the email client wants to stick something into the To: line to be pretty. I turned that off in my Mozilla email clients after seeing it. And so in that usage, the group was never used with other recipients. However, I totally agree that if it were, that the ABNF would call for both ; and , as the ; is part of the group syntax, and the , is the separator syntax. Would look rather stupid, though. -- Glenn ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again. -- Franklin Jones -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rdmurray at bitdance.com Tue May 17 03:14:19 2011 From: rdmurray at bitdance.com (R. David Murray) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 21:14:19 -0400 Subject: [Email-SIG] headers everywhere In-Reply-To: <4DD189B3.6020604@g.nevcal.com> References: <20110502162346.4AB2525013D@mailhost.webabinitio.net> <4DCEFFFE.2000508@g.nevcal.com> <20110516202422.95B0F250045@webabinitio.net> <4DD189B3.6020604@g.nevcal.com> Message-ID: <20110517011420.0776E250045@webabinitio.net> On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:31:47 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote: > Given than, 'orig' or 'src' bubble to the top of my list of preferences. Given the votes so far and my own preference, I think I'll go with 'source'. I don't think saving a few characters is worth it. > Seems like in modes with mixed email library versions, these are > recommended for regular use, possibly beyond generators, so that's why > their length stuck out to me as a possible issue. I think the only library code that would use it would be library code doing a generator-like function. I don't expect there to be many (any?) of those whose use-cases aren't covered by the standard generators. Value, on the other hand, will get used a lot. -- R. David Murray http://www.bitdance.com From turnbull at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp Tue May 17 05:44:26 2011 From: turnbull at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Stephen J. Turnbull) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 12:44:26 +0900 Subject: [Email-SIG] question on syntax of 'group' in address-list In-Reply-To: <20110516204041.A8316250045@webabinitio.net> References: <20110516204041.A8316250045@webabinitio.net> Message-ID: <87vcxaat45.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> R. David Murray writes: > I've gone through the RFCs and done some additional googling, > and haven't been able to confirm the answer to this question: what > exactly is the syntax when a group is included in an address-list? (See > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.4). The question is, if > another address follows the group, are they separated from each other by > ';' or by ';,'? The ABNF seems to call for the latter, but I can't find > any example showing it. I'm sure that I should accept both on input, Why? I mean, YAGNI. > but I'd like to generate the correct form. Does anyone have confirmation > or contradiction for my interpretation? >From RFC 822. The Cc field contains two groups, separated by ",", with each group terminated by ";". A.3.3. About as complex as you're going to get Date : 27 Aug 76 0932 PDT From : Ken Davis Subject : Re: The Syntax in the RFC Sender : KSecy at Other-Host Reply-To : Sam.Irving at Reg.Organization To : George Jones , Al.Neuman at MAD.Publisher cc : Important folk: Tom Softwood , "Sam Irving"@Other-Host;, Standard Distribution: /main/davis/people/standard at Other-Host, "standard.dist.3"@Tops-20-Host>; Comment : Sam is away on business. He asked me to handle his mail for him. He'll be able to provide a more accurate explanation when he returns next week. In-Reply-To: , George's message X-Special-action: This is a sample of user-defined field- names. There could also be a field-name "Special-action", but its name might later be preempted Message-ID: <4231.629.XYzi-What at Other-Host> From stephen at xemacs.org Tue May 17 05:48:49 2011 From: stephen at xemacs.org (Stephen J. Turnbull) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 12:48:49 +0900 Subject: [Email-SIG] headers everywhere In-Reply-To: <20110517011420.0776E250045@webabinitio.net> References: <20110502162346.4AB2525013D@mailhost.webabinitio.net> <4DCEFFFE.2000508@g.nevcal.com> <20110516202422.95B0F250045@webabinitio.net> <4DD189B3.6020604@g.nevcal.com> <20110517011420.0776E250045@webabinitio.net> Message-ID: <87tycuaswu.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> R. David Murray writes: > Given the votes so far and my own preference, I think I'll go with > 'source'. I don't think saving a few characters is worth it. Thank you for that!