From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/34668 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: SMTP question (not quite Gnus-related) Date: 08 Feb 2001 13:20:59 -0500 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <87y9vujkvd.fsf@torus.tenzing.com> <87lmrij8e2.fsf@inanna.rimspace.net> <8766imnfa9.fsf@torus.tenzing.com> <874ry6j5i7.fsf@inanna.rimspace.net> <87pugtm754.fsf@torus.tenzing.com> <878znhm4rw.fsf@torus.tenzing.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035170551 31557 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:22:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:22:31 +0000 (UTC) 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 17624D049D for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:21:36 -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 MAC13115; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:21:20 -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 12:20:40 -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 MAA21865 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:20:30 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from multivac.cwru.edu (multivac.STUDENT.CWRU.Edu [129.22.96.25]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 57814D049D for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:21:00 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (qmail 29115 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2001 18:21:21 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: "Steven E. Harris"'s message of "08 Feb 2001 10:02:59 -0800" User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7 Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Original-Lines: 33 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:34668 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:34668 "Steven E. Harris" 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 . The first in . is, I > > believe, considered part of the message. > > This is maddening! If the first if part of the body (don't get > me wrong - I like the idea), then they should not define the > *terminator* to be ".." I don't think they intended to say that . 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 ., but > only if immediately preceded by 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 ? 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