Re: bad (i.e. serious) mail problems

[Dmitry Yaitskov <dimas@home.com>]

Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> wrote:

> * Dmitry Yaitskov <dimas@home.com>  on Tue, 30 Mar 1999
> | Where (rfc#) does it say so? Note, the pop3 server (or rather, 3
> | different pop servers that I tested) did not become confused. It was
> | the local mail client (gnus) that got confused.
> 
> Then the bug is in Gnus.  QED.
> 
> [...]
> | Could you please explain - how on Earth do you *know* what the "spool
> | file on the server" (if by the server you mean the machine running the
> | pop3 you got the mail from) looks like? This info is certainly not
> | included in the pop3 protocol, is it?
> 
>       (narrow-to-region start end)
>       (goto-char (point-min))
>       (if (not (or (looking-at "From .?") ; Unix mail
> 		   (looking-at "\001\001\001\001\n") ; MMDF
> 		   (looking-at "BABYL OPTIONS:") ; Babyl
> 		   ))
> 
> That is how I know.  If any of those regexps are there at the beginning of
> the buffer, the spool is mbox, MMDF, or Babyl.  If none of these are there,
> the POP server has (incorrectly) stripped that information from the
> message, and something must be inserted to replace it.

Why incorrectly? This info is not part of the message, why should it
not be stripped, even if it was present while the server has been
storing the message? What rfc specifies that a message retrieved via
pop3 must have one of those things as the first line of the message?
Looks like a wrong assumption to me. And now I kinda see your logic in
not trying to escape the you-know-what :) lines, but it seems faulty
to me. You try to guess the format the server stored its messages in
before it gave them to you via pop3. If you cannot guess (i.e. none of
the 3 regexps above match) you generate SMTP envelopes yourself, but
you do *not* escape "\n\nFrom " as if you were dealing with a valid
mbox format whereas what you're dealing with are just separate
messages, and for separate messages, the "\n\nFrom " does not have to
mean anything, and having such lines for them is perfectly legal. But
if you are building the mbox (as is the case), *you* (I mean
pop3-movemail) is the missing :) MTA, and you should make sure that
what you build is valid. Whereas it is not.

BTW, I just rechecked - neither of my 3 pop3 servers supplies any of
the magic sequences you're using to second-guess its original storage
mode.

> The choice of
> generating faux SMTP envelopes was arbitrary.  I probably had a good reason
> for that.
> 
> | [...] Tell me that's not a bug.
> 
> Show me the offending message in its entirety, including all of the headers 
> and the envelope, and I will tell you exactly where the cause is.

Enjoy :) although I don't see how it can be useful. The 'envelope'
(the first line) has been generated by pop3-movemail anyway.

-------------------------cut here----------------------------------------
>From Robertson.Davenport@bailey.com  Fri Mar 12 08:45:40 1999
Return-Path: <owner-ntemacs-users@cs.washington.edu>
Received: from h1.mail.home.com ([24.0.0.50]) by mail.rdc1.on.home.com
          (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP
          id <19990312152831.EGNX8107.mail.rdc1.on.home.com@h1.mail.home.com>
          for <dimas@mail.mtth1.on.wave.home.com>;
          Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:28:31 -0800
Received: from mx3-w.mail.home.com (mx3-w.mail.home.com [24.0.0.53])
	by h1.mail.home.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id HAA15729;
	Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:28:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from trout.cs.washington.edu (trout.cs.washington.edu [128.95.1.178])
	by mx3-w.mail.home.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA14336;
	Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:28:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: (majordom@localhost) by trout.cs.washington.edu (8.8.5+CS/7.2trout) id FAA06845 for ntemacs-users-outgoing; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 05:46:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from june.cs.washington.edu (june.cs.washington.edu [128.95.1.4]) by trout.cs.washington.edu (8.8.5+CS/7.2trout) with ESMTP id FAA06841 for <ntemacs-users@trout.cs.washington.edu>; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 05:46:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.bailey.com (mail.bailey.com [192.231.53.2]) by june.cs.washington.edu (8.8.7+CS/7.2ju) with SMTP id FAA13909 for <ntemacs-users@cs.washington.edu>; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 05:46:18 -0800
Received: from mail.bailey.com [192.231.53.2]
	(HELO localhost)
	by mail.bailey.com (AltaVista Mail V2.0J/2.0J BL25J listener)
	id 0000_03c2_36e9_1af1_8ba8;
	Fri, 12 Mar 1999 08:47:29 -0500
Message-ID: <557E1B259579D211AF3E0008C7B14C8A3C21D8@exchcle5.bailey.com>
From: "Davenport, Robertson G" <Robertson.Davenport@bailey.com>
To: Jack Vinson <jvinson@chevax.ecs.umass.edu>,
        ntemacs-users
	 <ntemacs-users@cs.washington.edu>
Subject: RE: command line telnet for NT?
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 08:45:40 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-ntemacs-users@cs.washington.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-FAQ: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/voelker/ntemacs.html

I just ran into a new telnet client (well, it's been around for 
os/2 since 95 apparently) from Dima Malof:
  http://www.corbina.net/~maloff/tn/
I haven't tested it with Emacs yet, and thought someone else 
might want to try it and see how it fares. It's an 80KB download.

>From that webpage:
"Features:
  Emulation of mansi.sys, nansi.sys, nnansi.sys drivers. 
     Browse your Unix's termcap -- you have an entry for one 
     of this drivers for sure. Tn can (at least) emulate ANSI, 
     AT386, Interactive UNIX, Linux or FreeBSD console. 
     (Default is AT386.) 
  Charset translation. KOI8-r table is included in the d
     istribution. 
  Scroll back buffer ("Terminal History"). 
  Built-in telnet-specific "mouse actions": copy or paste to 
     the System Clipboard using your mouse, or scroll terminal's 
     history. 
  Multi-console a la screen. Run up to 10 sessions, switch 
     them with alt+F1 ... alt+F10 (default). 
  Italic and underline support (Specify a color to emulate 
     these ANSI states). 
  Support for ENVIRON, NEW-ENVIRON (Partial auto-login and 
     environment vars), TTYPE, NAWS(Transfer screen's Cols and 
     Rows to the remote) telnet protocol options. 
  Key mappings. 

  You will need Winsock 2.0 to run it. (It's included with 
     NT 4.0. If you want to run it under Windows 95 download 
     and install Winsock 2.0 for Windows 95 -- 1.4M. 
     Windows'95 has slow and buggy TCP/IP, so don't be 
     surprised.) 

  You can use NT's keyboard driver to switch to Russian under 
     NT, and you should run a DOS keyboard driver under 
     Windows'95. 

Rob Davenport

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jack Vinson [mailto:jvinson@chevax.ecs.umass.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 11:13 AM
> 
> I am looking for a decent version of telnet that will work 
> from the command
> line.  This should behave like the current versions of telnet 
> on Unix, for
> compatibility with the functions that call telnet.
-------------------------cut here----------------------------------------


-- 
Cheers,
-Dima.