Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <41521A99(_dot_)3020607(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
You want to take a close look at the References field in your message. It
was 989 characters long, and ended with
"<I4C4wF(_dot_)AnI(_at_)clerew(_dot_)ma!" followed
by a folded " n.ac.uk>" on the next line. Also, it was full of TABs where
it had evidently been folded before during its travels, but the folding
had been systematically undone by some system somewhere. So there are two
buggy MUAs somewhere on this list.
Don't blame MUAs for MTA bugs. My local file copy's References
field was exactly 998 octets long (not including the CRLF), which
is perfectly legal. A copy of that sent through my local MTA came
back with the Received field in the same state. A copy sent to
my ISP's MTA (Exim) came back with line folding inserted after
the 989th octet (the letter 'a'). Looks like bugs in Exim (989
instead of 998, and a botched folding algorithm). My copy of the
message from the list expander had an extra exclamation point
added at the 990th octet (either that differs from yours or you
miscounted). I'm not sure where that came from. There were tabs
in the single References field line in your message which I
responded to. I haven't traced back to determine if there had
ever been line folding; in any case unfolding is perfectly legal
when done properly, so that's immaterial.