Re: SMTP question (not quite Gnus-related)

[prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc)]

"Steven E. Harris" <steven.harris@tenzing.com> writes:
> prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:
> > Use a different start state.  I.e., start in the state you're normally
> > in after seeing <CRLF>.  The first <CRLF> in <CRLF>.<CRLF> is, I
> > believe, considered part of the message.
> 
> This is maddening! If the first <CRLF> if part of the body (don't get
> me wrong - I like the idea), then they should not define the
> *terminator* to be "<CRLF>.<CRLF>."

I don't think they intended to say that <CRLF>.<CRLF> is itself the
terminator.  I think the RFC was written by people who already knew
what SMTP looked like, and who didn't try to get inside the heads of
people who didn't.  So it doesn't quite tell you what SMTP is unless
you already know.  If you said that SMTP was badly designed and its
specification confusingly worded, I would agree with you.

> They should say something more like, "The terminator is .<CRLF>, but
> only if immediately preceded by <CRLF> or as the first three bytes
> of the stream."

Yes, that would be clearer, and would match (I think) the *intended*
meaning of the existing words.

> Okay, so then any sending MUA effectively augments your message if
> it's lacking the final <CRLF>? I didn't know that, but it could make
> sense.

Yes.  I don't know that the RFC says a sender must do this, but this
(or perhaps rejection) is the only sane way to handle such a message.


paul