From: Kent Landfield (kent@hypermail.org)
Date: Mon Sep 20 1999 - 00:08:01 CDT
As mentioned earlier, Daniel packaged up a copy of hypermail
that he thought I should be testing. I have been working on
getting hypermail to a stable point using purify and insure++.
We made real progress this last week. There were initially
3000+ array bounds problems in the code and a couple larger
memory leaks. Most were due to fall through assumptions and
uninitialized variables in heavily used routines. Those are
now gone. In the process I found that getname was not parsing
all the address formats that it needed to. It does now.
I have sent Daniel a complete copy to review and baseline.
I have run through all the tests in testhm on a testmail box
of 756 messages. I even tested missing Msg-ID: and duplicate
messages support. There are no array bounds problems at all
encountered for any of the tests run. I have cleaned up some
of the prototypes and I corrected the copy of the archive
programs with the ones I have been using here.
The plan Daniel and I discussed was at this point Daniel will
review and baseline it. He will then re-roll a new test version
for us to test. We are close. I think this copy is stable enough
to go out as 2.0. (Or at LEAST be substituted as the new "stable"
version.)
Existing problems:
- There are still memory leaks that are confusing me.
Less than 30 bytes per message are leaking. It seems
to be relatively consistent (25-30). It does not seem to
be a show stopper at those numbers. It caused no problems
during any of my testing here on the 15 different mailboxes
I used.
- HTML parsing is not very good. It REALLY needs work.
Progress is being made and it is much more stable than it
was earlier.
-- Kent Landfield Phone: 1-817-545-2502 Email: kent@landfield.com http://www.landfield.com/ Email: kent@nfr.net http://www.nfr.net/ Search the Usenet FAQ Archive at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ Search the RFC/FYI/STD/BCP Archive at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/