On Apr 13, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > The email package does not need a parser for every header, but it > should provide a framework that applications (or third party > libraries) can use to extend the built-in header parsers. A bare > minimum for functionality requires a Content-Type parser. I think > the email package should also include an address header (Originator, > Destination) parser, and a Message-ID header parser. Possibly others. Sure, that's fine... > The default would probably be some unstructured parser for headers > like Subject. But for unknown headers, it's not a useful choice to return a "str" object. "str" is just one possible structured data representation for a header: there's no correct useful decoding of all headers into str. Of course for the "Subject" header, str is the correct result type, but that's not a default, that's explicit support for "Subject". You can't correctly decode "To" into a str, so what makes you think you can decode "X-Gabazaborph" into str? The only useful and correct representation for unknown (or unimplemented) headers is the raw bytes. James
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4