[Python-Dev] Completing the email6 API changes.

R. David Murray rdmurray at bitdance.com
Sun Sep 1 18:28:06 CEST 2013

On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 00:18:59 +0900, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
> R. David Murray writes:
>  > Full validation is something that is currently a "future
>  > objective".
> I didn't mean it to be anything else. :-)
>  > There's infrastructure to do it, but not all of the necessary knowledge
>  > has been coded in yet.
> Well, I assume you already know that there's no way that can ever
> happen (at least until we abandon messaging entirely): new RFCs will
> continue to be published.  So it needs to be an extensible mechanism,
> a "pipeline" of checks (Barry would say a "chain of rules", I think).

My idea was to encode as much of the current known rules as as we have
the stomach for, and to have a validation flag that you turn on if you
want to check your message against those standards.  But without that
flag the code allows you to set arbitrary parameters and headers.

As you say, an extensible mechanism for the validators is a good idea.
So I take it back that the infrastructure is in place, since extensibility
doesn't exist for that feature yet.


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list