[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail |
Date: |
Sun, 27 Aug 2017 13:43:31 -0400 |
>I agree RFC 5322 lines are CRLF, but RFC 4155's application/mbox are
>just LF, and Unix mbox files from Postfix, etc., are just LF. I don't
>think the code should allow /\r?\n/ for all inputs, but I don't think
>you're saying it does?
AFAIK, it doesn't.
>Is retrieving POP3 emails the only time we should see the CR and it gets
>stripped off before the non-POP3 code sees it? When nmh creates a
>message/rfc822 it doesn't tack CRs on so presumably they're not meant to
>be there on non-nmh incoming ones?
If we are just doing a straight message/rfc822, then no, we don't tack a
CR on, because we're doing Unix line endings locally. AFAIK, it's only
in our interactions with network protocols like SMTP and POP3 that we
see CRs because that's the definition.
text/* that is encoded as base64 should technically include a CRLF. I
BELIEVE I added the code that will convert that Unix line endings upon
decode, and reencode it with CRLF (did I? I did! How about that!).
>We don't insist on CRLF when receiving RFC 5322, right.
Right ... I was just musing that maybe we should.
Some people have been recoiling in horror at my attempts to write an
RFC-822 address parser in Yacc/Bison. I don't know if that's going
to be successful or not; we'll see! But I was thinking of ditching
m_getfld() completely and switching it to flex tokenizer. I think that
makes a lot of sense, and should be straightforward. If we did that, a
regular expression to handle a line ending with \r\n would be trivial.
I welcome thoughts about that idea as well.
--Ken
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/08/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Paul Fox, 2017/08/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/08/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, David Levine, 2017/08/20
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/08/20
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ken Hornstein, 2017/08/23
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/08/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail,
Ken Hornstein <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, David Levine, 2017/08/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ken Hornstein, 2017/08/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, David Levine, 2017/08/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ken Hornstein, 2017/08/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/08/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/08/29
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ken Hornstein, 2017/08/29
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ken Hornstein, 2017/08/29
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, valdis . kletnieks, 2017/08/29
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/08/29