[SM-DEVEL] extending decodeBody functionality

[p d. t. <pdo...@an...>]

All,

  Got the message below yesterday, and after talking it over with Ryan,
I think there is no way to make SM aware of a new encoding type except
to change the source or create a new hook.  The questions, then, are:
what do people think of adding x-uuencode decoding to the core?  If it
seems too obscure, is the cost of a hook in decodeBody worth it?  Ooo,
if it was done as a hook, we could use Chris' new boolean hook function
to ask plugins if they handled the encoding or not.

Thoughts?

  - Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan P Linn [mailto:rp...@un...] 
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:38 PM
To: pdo...@an...
Subject: Plugin Question

Hello,
  I was trying to figure out how to port code that I wrote designed to
go 
into core SM to a plugin and was hoping that you might be able to help.

There is currently an additional encoding type that I need to support
for 
my users, x-uuencode.  I'm having a lot of trouble finding an
appropriate 
hook for this as the attachment is seen its just not decoded because the

encoding type isn't quoted or base64.  I looked at message_body and it 
didn't seem to fit there because only inline attachments in text look
like 
they would be processed there and the attachments_bottom doesn't look
like 
that fits well because at that point the attachment has already been 
displayed to the attachment box.  The attachment type/type hook doesn't 
seem to be the one that I would want to use because the end type is 
correct, its just the encoding thats wierd.  The part where this seemed
to 
fit in best in the core was in the decodeBody function in mine.php since

the only thing that has to happen is for the different encoding to kick 
in.  

  Sorry that was so long.  Thanks in advance for any advice you may be 
able to give on this.  I've been stuck for a few days and have working 
code that I'd like to contribute back but the feeling seemed to be that 
people would rather this be a plugin than in the core since so few
mailers 
use this type of encoding.  


Thanks again for your help.
-Ryan
k