ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2 MIME questions re: message/rfc822

2004-11-04 20:31:14

This may seem like splitting hairs, because I agree that the sender caused the initial problem, but are you saying that because the message/rfc822 object was incorrectly formatted (because of the inclusion of the From line), the downstream software was justified in throwing that offending line away? I'm skeptical because it doesn't actually make anything better, and it seems to me that "correcting" the contents is far more likely to cause harm than good. -- Nathaniel

On Nov 4, 2004, at 9:53 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:


Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:

Scenario:
I post to a mailing list, and include a multipart, one of
which is a message/rfc822.  My MUA software takes the entire message
as it lives in the message store, and sends it off.  When my copy
comes back from the mailing list, the PGP signature is busticated.
Why?  Because the first few lines outbound looked like:
+++ Start outbound copy here
------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-ID: 
<3230(_dot_)1099595697(_dot_)2(_at_)turing-police(_dot_)cc(_dot_)vt(_dot_)edu>
Content-Description: forwarded message
From owner-test-l(_at_)LISTSERV(_dot_)VT(_dot_)EDU  Thu Nov  4 14:12:36 2004
Return-Path: <owner-test-l(_at_)LISTSERV(_dot_)VT(_dot_)EDU>
Received: from localhost (IDENT:valdis(_at_)turing-police(_dot_)cc(_dot_)vt(_dot_)edu [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.13. 1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iA4JCU9n014549 for <valdis(_at_)turing-police(_dot_)cc(_dot_)vt(_dot_)edu>; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:12:35 -0500
+++ end outbound copy
(Yes, one long line - that was done by a local procmail rule).
+++ Start as-received here
------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-ID: 
<3230(_dot_)1099595697(_dot_)2(_at_)turing-police(_dot_)cc(_dot_)vt(_dot_)edu>
Content-Description: forwarded message
Return-Path: <owner-test-l(_at_)LISTSERV(_dot_)VT(_dot_)EDU>
Received: from localhost (IDENT:valdis(_at_)turing-police(_dot_)cc(_dot_)vt(_dot_)edu [127.0.0.1]) by
        turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id
        iA4JCU9n014549 for 
<valdis(_at_)turing-police(_dot_)cc(_dot_)vt(_dot_)edu>;
        Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:12:35 -0500
+++ End as-received
1) I am presuming that the mailing list is at fault for unwrapping the
Received: line? (or more correctly, "the piece of software that did the
unwrapping should be fixed")?

I'll let others comment on this question.

2) Am I at fault for including the mbox-style 'From ' line, or is
the mailing list (or whoever did it) at fault for removing it?

Yes, you are wrong to include the From_ pseudo-header. It is NOT a line that follows the ABNF for a header field. Since it's a broken header starting the message, the receiving software is free to do whatever it wants with the non-message. For example, the From_ line could be treated as the first line of the message body.

Both From_ and Return-Path: are considered to be relics of the storage format, and not part of the message. (The ill-fated Content-Length: is a similar type of header.)

        Tony Hansen
        tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com