From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/34673 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Pittman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: SMTP question (not quite Gnus-related) Date: 09 Feb 2001 11:42:59 +1100 Organization: Not today, thank you, Mother. Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <871yt8hejw.fsf@inanna.rimspace.net> References: <87y9vujkvd.fsf@torus.tenzing.com> <87lmrij8e2.fsf@inanna.rimspace.net> <8766imnfa9.fsf@torus.tenzing.com> <874ry6j5i7.fsf@inanna.rimspace.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035170555 31576 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:22:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:22:35 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: crlf,data,rfc,terminator,smtp Cc: ding@gnus.org Return-Path: Original-Received: from karazm.math.uh.edu (karazm.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.1]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785D9D049D for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 19:45:21 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by karazm.math.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAC24434; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:44:36 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:43:46 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from mailhost.sclp.com (postfix@66-209.196.61.interliant.com [209.196.61.66] (may be forged)) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24010 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:43:30 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from melancholia.danann.net (melancholia.danann.net [203.36.211.210]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7810D049D for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 19:43:48 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from localhost (melancholia.danann.net [203.36.211.210]) by melancholia.danann.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A23262A8CB for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:43:39 +1100 (EST) Original-Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B7A2D82053; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:43:00 +1100 (EST) Original-To: Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai =?iso-8859-1?q?Gro=DFjohann?=) In-Reply-To: (Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE's message of "08 Feb 2001 14:24:29 +0100") X-Homepage: http://danann.net/ X-spies: DES bomb militia World Trade Center Bosnia Kibo KGB munitions Croatian Watergate jihad encryption constitution New World Order Honduras User-Agent: Gnus/5.090001 (Oort Gnus v0.01) XEmacs/21.2 (Terspichore) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Original-Lines: 41 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:34673 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:34673 On 08 Feb 2001, Kai Gro=DFjohann wrote: > On 08 Feb 2001, Daniel Pittman wrote: >=20 >> It is fine by the fragment you posted. By my reading of it, anyway.=20 >>=20 >>> ,---- >>> | DATA >>> | . >>> `---- >>=20 >> That final line is a period on an otherwise empty line, the defined >> terminator. >=20 > But one message earlier, you said that "." is the > terminator. Now you are saying "." is the terminator. Which > one is it? (I vote for ".", opposing the example in the RFC.) Ah. I have the same unclearness as the RFC. So: DATA . -------------- This is the DATA command. --------------------- This is the end-of-data marker. > Presumably, an SMTP server reading the DATA command will also read the > that follows it. Hence, the is not available for the > subsequent end of data indication anymore. That's not how I read the RFC. Specifically, I see the notes on '.' as being a hint about what to look for. Anyway, if you are writing an SMTP sender, avoid sending this (just in case) and if you write an SMTP receiver, accept it. Because there *is* ambiguity in the RFC - if there wasn't, we wouldn't be debating it. ;) Daniel --=20 There is no happiness in having or in getting, but only in giving. -- Henry Drummond