Sending TO each other. Geez, it's early... On 8/4/05, Erik Bixby wrote: > RFCs aside, wouldn't something changing the message two users are > sending two each be considered a bug? Funny characters, and all... > -Erik > > On 8/4/05, Technomage wrote: > > : this is a test header > > : this is not an actual header > > : if this had been a real header, you would have been instructed > > : on what to do with them. > > > > > > ok. this is new to me. > > > > so, if I were to place a number of lines above that started with a ":" > > followed by a comment, some clients would interpret that as header info? > > > > btw, this e-mail is also a test..... > > > > On Thursday 04 August 2005 02:21, Joseph Sinclair wrote: > > > I'm not missing anything, the information is just hidden from view. > > > The first few lines (the ones with ":" characters) are being *properly* > > > interpreted by Thunderbird as header lines, and those don't show unless I > > > do a view source. > > > > > > The "tool" that's compressing out the blank lines between header fields is > > > somewhere in the SMTP cloud between you and me. I have no idea where, and > > > no way of hunting that down. > > > > > > BTW Section 4.2 of RFC 2822 on the IETF web site states: > > > In the obsolete syntax, any amount of folding white space MAY be > > > inserted where the obs-FWS rule is allowed. This creates the > > > possibility of having two consecutive "folds" in a line, and > > > therefore the possibility that a line which makes up a folded header > > > field could be composed entirely of white space. > > > > > > The EBNF in the spec states that a line with nothing but whitespace (i.e. > > > tab or space) is allowed on input (compliant software should NEVER generate > > > such a header), but a lot of older MTA's interpret that as "Blank Lines Are > > > Allowed" on incoming messages. I know that's not perfect behavior, but > > > speaking as someone who worked on MTA's about 15 years ago when the > > > standing spec was RFC 822, a LOT of MTA's allowed completely blank lines, > > > and a lot of other MTA's would remove those extra "fold" lines as a way of > > > reducing message size without harming the content. There are still a lot > > > of MTA's out there that follow this, admittedly obsolete, reasoning, but > > > there's also very little I can do to fix it, since I don't know which > > > servers they are, and I couldn't do much about obsolete proprietary > > > software even if I did. > > > > > > The point of all this is that it's a simple fix to just DON'T PUT LINES > > > WITH ":" CHARACTERS IN THE FIRST LINE OF YOUR MESSAGE. Is it that hard to > > > just accept that there are bad MTA's out there and take simple steps to > > > avoid having them munge your message? > > > > > > I'm not asking you to do something terribly hard here, just to be a little > > > more considerate when you put links in a message by prefacing them with > > > something simple, like a line stating what the link is for. It's not hard, > > > and we're all used to doing simple things like this to work around flaws in > > > widely used, but flawed, proprietary software (like IE). > > > > > > ==Joseph++ > > > > > > Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > > > > On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Joseph Sinclair wrote: > > > >> The User Agent isn't the only actor here. The intervening mail > > > >> servers are permitted to interpret the headers of the message as > > > >> provided under section 4.2 of RFC 2822, and they're permitted to > > > >> modify those headers to add trace information, reorder fields,, > > > >> etc... This is what's happening for me, and probably for some other > > > >> people as well. > > > >> One of more servers between you and me (at least 7 for the message > > > >> below) is removing the blank line before your "fake" headers, and > > > >> Thunderbird sees it, properly, as part of the header block. According > > > >> to the RFC 2822 spec, all conforming UA's SHOULD accept messages with > > > >> blank lines between headers to accommodate sending UA's that are > > > >> designed to the RFC 822 spec (which allowed this behavior). > > > > > > > > 4.2 is the wrong section (unless different rfc2822 are sectioned > > > > differently). > > > > > > > > The problem is that my two extra lines are not part of the header :) > > > > > > > > Please quote the specific section that allows putting "a line with > > > > nothing preceding the CRLF" between the real headers and more headers. > > > > > > > > I'll admit that I don't know the mail specs perfectly. But I do have > > > > experience with email message parsing: I have done POP3 server > > > > development for around six years and have maintained vm-pop3d for over > > > > four years; taught mail server administration for over four years; and I > > > > have read a lot of exim, postfix and sendmail MTA code and mail.local > > > > MDA code (and other SMTP mailers) and wrote and use "mailout" SMTP-out > > > > sendmail replacement. > > > > > > > >> Note, the replied messages below are NOT modified in any way, and your > > > >> "fake" headers are not shown. I don't just make this stuff up, and I > > > >> rather resent your implication that I did. > > > > > > > > We should track down specifically what mail *tool* lost my important :) > > > > email message. I agree with Kurt: it's a bug that needs to be reported. > > > > > > > > Please see > > > > http://lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/lurker/message/20050804.005401.9719e855.e > > > >n.html > > > > > > > > and > > > > http://lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/lurker/message/20050804.013243.964e82c1.e > > > >n.html > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone know where the lines were lost? > > > > > > > > I am interested in solving this. Other readers: please let me know if my > > > > two lines were missing for you. > > > > > > > > Jeremy C. Reed > > > > > > > > BSD News, BSD tutorials, BSD links > > > > http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > > > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: > > > > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: > > > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > --------------------------------------------------- > > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: > > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > > --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss