Mark Delany wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 04:55:23PM -0700, Michael Thomas allegedly wrote:
In a word, it's very, very real, and I believe that simple
canonicalization will need
to be changed to accommodate this. I just read through RFC 2822 and it
has this
To work around broken mailers? I think not.
A good number of sites reject bare LFs. Also at least the standard
qmail inbound smtp rejects such email. I hope that other well
implemented receivers do the same.
Sendmail is broken? RFC 822 is "broken"?
I'm sorry, RFC2822 was published in 2001 -- a blink of the eye. To ignore
legacy is foolhardy, and is as foolhardy as relying on simple for headers
as an "aspiration".
Hopefully the trend to accept any goop is declining rather than
increasing. I expect my inbound SMTP receiver to only present me with
a valid SMTP stream.
Goop is timeless. We are here to patch a broken mail system, not to
design it
as if we could go back to first principles. Our experience is that the
kind of
applications that generate this kind of mail are as common as dirt, and
they don't have any aspirations for email at all.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html