Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #63610 > unrolled thread

Is email.parser a good replacement for formail?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Is email.parser a good replacement for formail? Matěj Cepl <mcepl@redhat.com> - 2014-01-09 17:05 +0100

#63610 — Is email.parser a good replacement for formail?

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,



I have a script (https://github.com/mcepl/gg_scraper) where I need to
read possibly malformed mbox messages. I use subprocess.Popen() and
/usr/bin/formail to clean up them to be correct mbox messages (with
correct leading From line etc.). Now I try to run tests for my script on
Travis-CI, where I don't have installed formail. Actually, I learned now
that I can run apt-get install procmail in .travis.yml. But still, I
started to think whether I couldn’t fix my script to be purely Pythonic.
I know that

    msg = email.message_from_string(original_msg)
    print(msg.as_string(unixfrom=True))

works as a poor-man’s replacement for `formail -d`. Now, I would like to
know how reliable replacement it is. Does anybody have (or know about) a
corpus of poorly formatted messages which can be fixed by formail to
test upon it?

Thanks a lot for any reply,

Matěj

-- 
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mcepl@ceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB  25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC

Less is more or less more.
   -- Y_Plentyn on #LinuxGER
      (from fortunes -- I cannot resist :-)

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web