216075 - Remove unused uuencode code from mailnews compose

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(MailNews Core :: Composition, defect)

Description

[David :Bienvenu]

We still have backend code for doing uuencode - I think it crashes if we ever
execute it, but I don't think there's a way to get to it either through the ui
or a hidden pref, so we should just rip it out. We should leave in the code to
do uudecode, however.

Comment 1

[David :Bienvenu]

Attachment: get rid of uuencode code

this code hasn't been used for a long time. The one potential issue is editing drafts that had uuencoded attachments, but I think that's OK.

Comment 2

[[e-mail]]

Comment on attachment 330335 [details] [diff] [review]
get rid of uuencode code

>-    else if (!PL_strcasecmp(newAttachment->encoding, ENCODING_UUENCODE) ||
>-             !PL_strcasecmp(newAttachment->encoding, ENCODING_UUENCODE2) ||
>-             !PL_strcasecmp(newAttachment->encoding, ENCODING_UUENCODE3) ||
>-             !PL_strcasecmp(newAttachment->encoding, ENCODING_UUENCODE4))
>-      fn = &MimeUUDecoderInit;
What's the reasoning behind this change?

Comment 3

[David :Bienvenu]

the thinking was that we don't care about drafts with uuencoded parts, since we haven't created uuencoded parts for many years, but I suppose a user could take a message generated by an other client that does have uuencoded parts, and put it in their draft folder, and then try to edit it - I'll make sure we build if I take out that change...

Comment 4

[David :Bienvenu]

Attachment: remove the uudecode code from mimedrft

Comment 5

[[e-mail]]

Comment on attachment 330998 [details] [diff] [review]
remove the uudecode code from mimedrft

Was the omission of nsMsgComposeSecure.cpp an oversight?

Comment 6

[David :Bienvenu]

I forgot to include that directory in the diff - I changed it locally. I'll add that patch now...

Comment 7

[David :Bienvenu]

Attachment: smime changes

Comment 8

[[e-mail]]

Comment on attachment 330998 [details] [diff] [review]
remove the uudecode code from mimedrft

You could have just said "yes" then I could have said "sr=me with the smime changes from the first patch" ;-)