On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 11:36:57PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote: > However, when this report was finally forwarded > upstream (https://rt.cpan.org/NoAuth/Bug.html?id=15900), the upstream > author replied: > > > If a message is created using the provided MailBox methods, like > > build(), it willo have a Date field. If it is an incoming message, the > > mail-delivery agent will add received lines. So: the question is: why > > aren't we in either case? Is a different line added? > > > > The only good fix is to produce a time-stamp based on some other fact. > > Which fact? > > > Could you comment on this? How did you end up with a message with > neither Date: nor Received: fields?
Good question. Unfortunately, answering it would require that I remember what project I was working on at a point some 18 months ago... I don't have the faintest idea. Obviously it happened somehow. My *guess* would be that it was acquired via Mail::Message->read and the mail I read in did indeed have neither field. There's a good chance that I was doing something with a mail that happened to be 'not strictly valid', but that's depressingly common with mail. If it had no Received line then it was probably supplied by the user. On reflection it would not be unreasonable to croak in this case (although I'd hope that something more permissive would work, like using the current time), and I was probably objecting to it 'working' but spewing an incomprehensible warning - it should either work cleanly or throw an exception. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
