[Mailman-Developers] Re: [Mailman-Users] Problem with Date:-headers

[Tokio Kikuchi]

Hi, Jon and Richard.

I am with Richard. Following patch fix this and I really don't
understand why this else close is required.

Tokio

--- /home/mailman/src/mailman-2.1.2/misc/email-2.5.1/email/_parseaddr.py
Mon Mar 31 05:21:29 2003
+++ _parseaddr.py	Fri May  2 08:45:34 2003
@@ -52,11 +52,11 @@
     if data[0].endswith(',') or data[0].lower() in _daynames:
         # There's a dayname here. Skip it
         del data[0]
-    else:
-        i = data[0].rfind(',')
-        if i < 0:
-            return None
-        data[0] = data[0][i+1:]
+    #else:
+    #    i = data[0].rfind(',')
+    #    if i < 0:
+    #        return None
+    #    data[0] = data[0][i+1:]
     if len(data) == 3: # RFC 850 date, deprecated
         stuff = data[0].split('-')
         if len(stuff) == 3:





Jon Carnes wrote:
> Thanks Richard,
> 
> I hate to say this, but I'm not seeing the same results as you.  I
> duplicated your test and got the same answer for both tests. 
> 
> Here is my test with the "import paths":
> 
> [jonc at anncons /usr/local/mailman/bin]$ python
> Python 2.2.2 (#2, Feb  5 2003, 10:40:08)
> [GCC 3.2.1 (Mandrake Linux 9.1 3.2.1-5mdk)] on linux-i386
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
> 
>>>>import paths
>>>>from email.Utils import parsedate_tz, mktime_tz
>>>>d1 = '22 Mar 2002 13:26:16 +0100'
>>>>p1 = parsedate_tz(d1)
>>>>print p1
>>>
> (2002, 3, 22, 13, 26, 16, 0, 0, 0, 3600)
> 
> 
> Thanks - Jon
> 
> On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 17:26, Richard Barrett wrote:
> 
>>Jon
>>
>>I sent this earlier to Stig petterso at online.no but managed to screw up 
>>putting you and mailman-users on the Cc
>>
>>Richard
>>
>>I said to Stig:
>>
>>Stig
>>
>>In response to your original query, I think there may be an issue with the 
>>version of email,Utils.parsedate_tz() function that is shipped with Mailman.
>>
>>Mailman ships with the email module version 2.5.1 and MM uses that in 
>>preference to any version of the email module that is installed with your 
>>Python version.
>>
>>The first form of date you cited is not parsed successfully and pipermail 
>>reverts to other alternatives, ultimately using now if all else fails.
>>
>>This looks to be a problem with a standard library module rather than a 
>>pipermail problem per se. Whether this is a bug or a feature in email-2.5.1 
>>I have yet to determine.
>>
>>The following results are from running Python on a terminal using Python 
>>2.2.2 and you can see the difference in parsing the date between the 
>>version of email that shipped with Python 2.2.2 and the alternative version 
>>(which is loaded instead as a result of the import paths statement) which 
>>shipped with MM 2.1.2
>>
>>
>>mailman at mailman2:/mailman/run/bin> python
>>Python 2.2.2 (#3, Feb 11 2003, 16:57:53)
>>[GCC 2.95.3 20010315 (SuSE)] on linux2
>>Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>> >>> from email.Utils import parsedate_tz, mktime_tz
>> >>> d1 = '22 Mar 2002 13:26:16 +0100'
>> >>> p1 = parsedate_tz(d1)
>> >>> print p1
>>(2002, 3, 22, 13, 26, 16, 0, 0, 0, 3600)
>> >>>
>>mailman at mailman2:/mailman/run/bin> python
>>Python 2.2.2 (#3, Feb 11 2003, 16:57:53)
>>[GCC 2.95.3 20010315 (SuSE)] on linux2
>>Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>> >>> import paths
>> >>> from email.Utils import parsedate_tz, mktime_tz
>> >>> d1 = '22 Mar 2002 13:26:16 +0100'
>> >>> p1 = parsedate_tz(d1)
>> >>> print p1
>>None
>> >>>
>>mailman at mailman2:/mailman/run/bin>
>>
>>I will take a look at the email.Utils source code and see if I can sort out 
>>some sort of patch for this. If I cannot see a solution, I will send Barry 
>>Warsaw, who I believe also 'owns' the email module, a problem report.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Richard
>>
>>
>>In http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2003-May/028679.html
>>
>>Stig said;
>>
>>I just upgraded to Mailman 2.1.2 and regenerated my archives.
>>
>>After the process was finished, some messages was given todays date, and 
>>was therefor misplaced in the archive hierarcy.
>>
>>It seems to me that Mailman/Pipermail does not understand this kind of 
>>date-header:
>>
>>     Date: 22 Mar 2002 13:26:16 +0100
>>
>>while this one is ok:
>>
>>     Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:08:56 +0100
>>
>>The first mail is posted using GNUS/Emacs, while the second is posted using 
>>Outlook Express.
>>
>>Am I right?
>>
>>Is this a known bug, or is it supposed to be like this? Kind regards,
>>
>>Stig 
>>
>