ReadMessageHandle question

[Julian Field]

On 2 May 2006, at 22:09, Leonardo Helman wrote:

> Hi
>
> I've been away from the list for a while.
>
> For all the people out there using zmailer+mailscanner (me)
> I'm porting now some of the last enhacenmnets.
>
> I'm very interested in ReadMessageHandle modif
>
> But I saw two things I don't understand very well
>
> Julian, inside that function, when you wrote this code:
>
>
> my $dhandle = $this->{dpath};
> ..
> sysseek($dhandle, 0, 0); # Rewind the file
> ..
> copy($dhandle , $handle);
> ..
> sysseek($dhandle, 0, 0); # Rewind the file
>
>
> but in the "constructor", it is written like:
> $this->{dpath} = $dir . '/' . $this->{dname};
>
>
> So, this is a file, not really a handle, right?
> so the sysseek are pointless.
> Or am I forgetting something?

No, you are absolutely right, it's a bug. Fortunately one that  
doesn't have any effect. It just renders the sysseeks on $hhandle and  
$dhandle useless.

>
>
> Other thing:
>
> In Message.pm, when you wrote:
>
>     if (!$entity && !MIME::Entity::MailScannerCounter()>=$maxparts) {
>       unless ($this->{dpath}) {
>
> Isn't $this->{dpath} always the name of the datafile (at least for  
> sendmail,
> I really didn't look much of the code for the others), so this  
> "unless"
> is always false (so it could be eliminated)?

Not if it ran out of disk space trying to do it! In that case $this-> 
{dpath} would be empty (and hence 0).


>
>
> Last but not least, I think, we have to change Messages.pm a little  
> and
> move to the DiskStores the references to $this->{dpath}, like
> we have done when I sent to you the zmailer parts.
>
> For those changes for example look, in SMDiskStore.pm, look for: "#  
> LEOH 26/03/2003 We do not have dpath in other mailers" (more than 3  
> years wow!)
> I'm thinking something in the line of getFileNameToLog or  
> something, I don't
> remember, but I think, we have done something like that.

I can't remember this one. From what I *can* remember, dpath exists  
in the Message object for other mailers doesn't it? Does it matter  
what other mailers do here?

> I'm sorry that I couldn't do this port when you change that code  
> for the
> others, but tomorrow (I hope) I'll finish, test and send to you  
> this patch

No problem. Thanks for helping to debug my code :-)

-- 
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store
PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.