clewis@eci386.uucp (Chris Lewis) (05/17/89)
Did Zmailer do this somehow? Notice the Subject: line (and continuation). The mangling looks like stuff we've seen Zmailer do, and the contents look like the References: line. | From telly!attcan!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!dgp.toronto.edu!flaps Tue May 16 15:16:06 EDT 1989 | Article 38 of comp.lang.c: | Path: eci386!telly!attcan!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!dgp.toronto.edu!flaps | From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) | Newsgroups: comp.lang.c | Subject: Re: printf() and commutative operations problem | <etc.(?illegal word in localpart?).(?illegal word in localpart?).(?illegal word in localpart?)> <15580@gryphon.COM> ; | Keywords: C printf | Message-ID: <8905151846.AA15998@champlain.dgp.toronto.edu> | Date: 15 May 89 18:46:56 GMT | Organization: Dynamic Graphics Project, University of Toronto | Lines: 23 ... -- Chris Lewis, R.H. Lathwell & Associates: Elegant Communications Inc. UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo}!lsuc!gate!eci386!clewis Phone: (416)-595-5425
rayan@ai.toronto.edu (Rayan Zachariassen) (05/17/89)
Actually, that's Geoff's doing... he didn't believe Illegal-Object was a real sanctioned header so he modified something (mythical-C news relaynews?) to strip it; except it didn't or doesn't deal too well with continuation lines. Culprit is utstat. I'm sure Geoff will claim I'm the Real culprit :-)
geoff@utstat.uucp (Geoff Collyer) (05/17/89)
Zmailer did half the mangling and utstat did half. Zmailer added an Illegal-Object header, something like Illegal-Object: Bad References found by Zmailer on neat.ai.toronto.edu: <etc.(?illegal word in localpart?).(?illegal word in localpart?).(?illegal word in localpart?)> <15580@gryphon.COM> ; utstat tried to delete the Illegal-Object header but only nuked the first line. I hope to have this fixed soon so that utstat will nuke both lines. -- Geoff Collyer utzoo!utstat!geoff, geoff@utstat.toronto.edu It's all Henry's fault. (TM)
geoff@utstat.uucp (Geoff Collyer) (05/19/89)
utstat is now nuking all lines of Illegal-Object: headers. Illegal-Object: is indeed mentioned, along with Illegal-Field:, on page 10 of RFC 886 (Proposed Standard for Message Header Munging), which starts off by saying ``This memo proposes a standard for the ARPA Internet community.''. Now that the ARPAnet is a trivial network and NSFnet is the ``Internet'', it is not obvious that this memo carries any force today, if it ever did (I'm afraid I don't have the energy to devote to keeping up with the RFC du jour and the latest fashions in mailer science). Whether or not the defunct ARPAnet ever endorsed RFC 886, to the best of my knowledge no other mail system conforms to RFC 886, nor should any. Just as mail systems regularly violate RFCs 821 & 822 to get the mail through, RFC 886 should be ignored. Header munging is a mortal sin unless performed at the point of origin or at a translating gateway between dissimilar networks (e.g. RFC 821/2 to X.400). (Header deleting is only a venial sin, since it wouldn't be necessary if other software refrained from excreting such wretched headers.) In any case, RFC 886 applies only to mail (``This memo describes the rules that are to be used when mail is transformed from one standard format to another.''); Illegal-Objects: should not litter our netnews. -- Geoff Collyer utzoo!utstat!geoff, geoff@utstat.toronto.edu It's all Henry's fault. (TM)
rayan@ai.toronto.edu (Rayan Zachariassen) (05/20/89)
I disagree with everything Geoff says, except that I too don't like to see Illegal-Object in news headers (but I disagree with Geoff's solution!). I'm saying this in public because when Geoff and I meet mail is a taboo subject. It's all Geoff's fault! (licensed TM) so there ;-)