Is this patch of gnus/pop3.el reasonable?

Is this patch of gnus/pop3.el reasonable?

[David Kastrup]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]


I am currently cleaning through unchecked changes in my Emacs tree.  I
found that I have made the following change, presumably in order to
stop pop3 fetching from hanging in some cases with a possibly patchy
pop3 server.  Could also be related to coding system translation or
something.

Now the question is whether this is a bad idea to check into upstream.
I can't see that it will affect operation where the server is correct,
and it might avoid hangs where it isn't.

What do you think?


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/x-patch, Size: 431 bytes --]

--- pop3.el	01 Aug 2007 00:14:10 +0200	1.38
+++ pop3.el	11 Aug 2007 08:56:13 +0200	
@@ -246,7 +246,7 @@
       (set-buffer (process-buffer process))
       (goto-char pop3-read-point)
       (while (and (memq (process-status process) '(open run))
-		  (not (search-forward "\r\n" nil t)))
+		  (not (search-forward "\n" nil t)))
 	(pop3-accept-process-output process)
 	(goto-char pop3-read-point))
       (setq match-end (point))

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 51 bytes --]


-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

[-- Attachment #4: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: Is this patch of gnus/pop3.el reasonable?

[Leo]

On 2007-09-30 23:38 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> I am currently cleaning through unchecked changes in my Emacs tree.  I
> found that I have made the following change, presumably in order to
> stop pop3 fetching from hanging in some cases with a possibly patchy
> pop3 server.  Could also be related to coding system translation or
> something.
>
> Now the question is whether this is a bad idea to check into upstream.
> I can't see that it will affect operation where the server is correct,
> and it might avoid hangs where it isn't.
>
> What do you think?

It might have something to do with: <m23ax2cq6j.fsf@cam.ac.uk> in
emacs-devel.

-- 
.:  Leo  :.  [ sdl.web AT gmail.com ]  .:  [ GPG Key: 9283AA3F ]  :.

       Use the most powerful email client -- http://gnus.org/

Re: Is this patch of gnus/pop3.el reasonable?

[Stainless Steel Rat]

On Sep 30, 2007, at 6:38 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Now the question is whether this is a bad idea to check into upstream.
> I can't see that it will affect operation where the server is correct,
> and it might avoid hangs where it isn't.
>
> What do you think?

I think it breaks spec.  POP3 responses are terminated with CRLF (\r 
\n).  That's not an option.  My dim recollection of the POP3 specs  
are that lone CRs or LFs are not prohibited in responses so searching  
for something other than the in-spec terminator could be bad.

Does such a buggy, standards-breaking POP3 server exist?  If so then  
I think that the correct way to address it is to make the terminator  
a variable that can be changed on a per-user basis rather than making  
a global static change that could adversely affect everyone else in  
the world using in-spec POP servers.  Otherwise leave it alone.  It  
does what the POP3 RFCs say it should.
-- 
\m/  (--)  \m/

Re: Is this patch of gnus/pop3.el reasonable?

[Zhang Wei]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> I am currently cleaning through unchecked changes in my Emacs tree.  I
> found that I have made the following change, presumably in order to
> stop pop3 fetching from hanging in some cases with a possibly patchy
> pop3 server.  Could also be related to coding system translation or
> something.

The current version of pop3.el is quite different from that of xemacs,
it still didn't support UIDL command, which is quite urgent to prevent
gnus from fetching the same message repeatedly while messages are kept
on the server.

Re: Is this patch of gnus/pop3.el reasonable?

[Stainless Steel Rat]

On Oct 1, 2007, at 2:32 AM, Zhang Wei wrote:
> The current version of pop3.el is quite different from that of xemacs,
> it still didn't support UIDL command, which is quite urgent to prevent
> gnus from fetching the same message repeatedly while messages are kept
> on the server.

UIDL does not exist in RFC 1460, the spec that was current when I  
wrote pop3.el.

I wrote pop3.el because I had a need for it.  If you have need of  
something new then you should write it.  That is part of the nature  
of free software.
-- 
\m/  (--)  \m/

Re: Is this patch of gnus/pop3.el reasonable?

[Richard Stallman]

    Now the question is whether this is a bad idea to check into upstream.
    I can't see that it will affect operation where the server is correct,
    and it might avoid hangs where it isn't.

    What do you think?

I am no expert on pop3, but if it is supposed to transmit CRLF
and never use just LF, then this can't hurt.