Re: who was that last message to again?

Re: who was that last message to again?

[Eric Blake]

Wow - for once, I sent a mail with a To: having more characters than
my ISP's lame Message-id: header (which I have been told has more
than enough bits in it to uniquely identify the age of every atom in the
universe in nanoseconds, let alone each post).  What is it with people
who abuse email headers rather than using a message body (oh wait,
I just did it myself - may a hippo fall on me for my inconsiderate
behavior).

-- 
Eric Blake

Re: who was that last message to again?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 04:39:00AM +0000, Eric Blake wrote:
>Wow - for once, I sent a mail with a To: having more characters than
>my ISP's lame Message-id: header (which I have been told has more
>than enough bits in it to uniquely identify the age of every atom in the
>universe in nanoseconds, let alone each post).  What is it with people
>who abuse email headers rather than using a message body (oh wait,
>I just did it myself - may a hippo fall on me for my inconsiderate
>behavior).

Heh.  My attempt to reply by using the From: field just caused mutt
to wipe out both the To and the From field.  Maybe it was the parentheses.

cgf

RE: who was that last message to again?

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> From: Eric Blake
> 
> Wow - for once, I sent a mail with a To: having more 
> characters than my ISP's lame Message-id: header (which I 
> have been told has more than enough bits in it to uniquely 
> identify the age of every atom in the universe in 
> nanoseconds, let alone each post).  What is it with people 
> who abuse email headers rather than using a message body (oh 
> wait, I just did it myself - may a hippo fall on me for my 
> inconsiderate behavior).
> 
> --
> Eric Blake

Well, at least *you* did it on the proper list.  Others would rather
repeatedly and determinedly break mailing list rules.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

Re: who was that last message to again?

[Brian Dessent]

RE: who was that last message to again?

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle

Re: who was that last message to again?

[Dave Korn]

RE: who was that last message to again?

[Dave Korn]

On 27 April 2006 13:11, Dave Korn wrote:

Re: who was that last message to again?

[Robert Pendell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> 

Just so everyone knows.  This may or may not be a good way of hiding
messages from news.gmane.org newsserver.  That is how I retrieve the
messages now.  I had to go to the archives and see how you were
formatting your messages.

- --
Robert Pendell
shinji257@uplink.net

Thawte Web of Trust Notary
CAcert Assurer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEUM/4NqnRaBCOmrYRAiYPAJ9PQkfh8pEPm2G/g2uKR3Oam58fjgCgh9Bu
BIKKJRWwbyVQNcOM206GZTg=
=HoB5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

RE: who was that last message to again?

[Dave Korn]

On 27 April 2006 15:07, Robert Pendell wrote:

Re: who was that last message to again?

[Cary Jamison]

Robert Pendell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>>
>
> Just so everyone knows.  This may or may not be a good way of hiding
> messages from news.gmane.org newsserver.  That is how I retrieve the
> messages now.  I had to go to the archives and see how you were
> formatting your messages.

I always read these lists through gmane, usually using outlook express. 
Their abusive headers are still there, just not easy to get to.  If you turn 
on 'view all headers' it doesn't!  If you click on properties and then the 
details tab, you can see the 'original-to:' header.

Of course, in this thread, I knew to look for it - otherwise, you could hide 
a lot from me (maybe even a hippo =:-0 )


Cary

RE: who was that last message to again?

[Dave Korn]

On 27 April 2006 16:16, Cary Jamison wrote:

> Robert Pendell wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> Just so everyone knows.  This may or may not be a good way of hiding
>> messages from news.gmane.org newsserver.  That is how I retrieve the
>> messages now.  I had to go to the archives and see how you were
>> formatting your messages.
> 
> I always read these lists through gmane, usually using outlook express.
> Their abusive headers 


  Ah, yes, abusive headers.  I think "Xxxxx-Off:" is perhaps the most abusive
of all!


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: who was that last message to again?

[Robert Pendell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Cary Jamison wrote:
> Robert Pendell wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> Just so everyone knows.  This may or may not be a good way of hiding
>> messages from news.gmane.org newsserver.  That is how I retrieve the
>> messages now.  I had to go to the archives and see how you were
>> formatting your messages.
> 
> I always read these lists through gmane, usually using outlook express. 
> Their abusive headers are still there, just not easy to get to.  If you turn 
> on 'view all headers' it doesn't!  If you click on properties and then the 
> details tab, you can see the 'original-to:' header.
> 
> Of course, in this thread, I knew to look for it - otherwise, you could hide 
> a lot from me (maybe even a hippo =:-0 )
> 
> 
> Cary

Ahhh... Ok.  Thanks.  I checked it again and there is indeed a header
called that and contains the information there.  I /really/ need to get
Mnenhy extention on thunderbird working again...

- --
Robert Pendell
shinji257@uplink.net

Thawte Web of Trust Notary
CAcert Assurer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEUPpyNqnRaBCOmrYRAkruAJ93xyAl7WlQh3wlfXggQteuO3K53wCfSi0f
wYt5ti6SImsx9erqkHDpjFM=
=L48l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: who was that last message to again?

[Eric Blake]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Brian Dessent on 4/26/2006 11:08 PM:

Whoa.  This mail exposed a bug in Thunderbird.  The To: line in my message
display didn't wrap, and didn't offer a horizontal scroll bar, so all I
could see without viewing full source was

To: "me too. Was: Wow - for once, I sent a mail with a To: having more
characters than,my ISP's lame Message-id: header (which I have been told
has more,than enough b

Then, according to 'view source', all you sent was

To:
 "me too. Was: Wow - for once, I sent a mail with a To: having more characters
 than,my ISP's lame Message-id: header (which I have been told has more,than
 enough bits in it to uniquely identify the age of every atom in the,universe
 in nanoseconds, let a, cygwin-talk AT cygwin DOT com


(Well, not quite - it used @ and . instead of AT and DOT).  Notice there
was no closing quote!  How'd it even get delivered to me without a valid
email address?  Yet according to the archive,
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2006-q2/msg00151.html, you sent

To: "me too. Was: Wow - for once, I sent a mail with a To: having more
characters than,my ISP's lame Message-id: header (which I have been told
has more,than enough bits in it to uniquely identify the age of every atom
in the,universe in nanoseconds, let alone each post). What is it with
people,who abuse email headers rather than using a message body (oh wait,I
just did it myself - may a hippo fall on me for my
inconsiderate,behavior)." <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>


Now I'm curious as to which MTA between cygwin and me is _truncating_ mail
headers?  And which MUA/MTA between you and cygwin is adding all those
random commas?  I'm outraged!  I should drop a hippo on the culprit(s)!


All this experimentation with SMTP has been fun; it reminds me of the
class I took in college where our semester project was to implement an RFC
in Java, and I chose RFC822.  However, I don't think I could recommend my
particular implementation for use in the wild, since I got the worst grade
of my college career in that course.

- --
Life is short - so eat dessert first!

Eric Blake             ebb9@byu.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEU/Pb84KuGfSFAYARAsieAKCc9LviHIwK+5YH6wKZJyGhdPfxBwCfb+z1
p7lqvvLIGalGb2VIT2Zoo3Q=
=bJ95
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

RE: who was that last message to again?

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> From: Eric Blake
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> According to Brian Dessent on 4/26/2006 11:08 PM:
> 
> Whoa.  This mail exposed a bug in Thunderbird.

1.  I told you guys you were going to break the internet.
2.  Thunderbird, being a non-Microsoft product, is not only defect-free but
also immune to viruses, spyware, etc, so it is simply not possible that the
problem you saw had any relationship to it.

[snip]
> Now I'm curious as to which MTA between cygwin and me is 
> _truncating_ mail headers?  And which MUA/MTA between you and 
> cygwin is adding all those random commas?  I'm outraged!  I 
> should drop a hippo on the culprit(s)!
> 

Well now let's not go nuts here.  A good banning is clearly called for, but
I don't think physical injury due to falling wild animals is really
appropriate.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

RE: who was that last message to again?

[Dave Korn]

On 30 April 2006 00:17, Eric Blake wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> According to Brian Dessent on 4/26/2006 11:08 PM:
> 
> Whoa.  This mail exposed a bug in Thunderbird.  The To: line in my message
> display didn't wrap, and didn't offer a horizontal scroll bar, so all I
> could see without viewing full source was
> 
> To: "me too. Was: Wow - for once, I sent a mail with a To: having more
> characters than,my ISP's lame Message-id: header (which I have been told
> has more,than enough b
> 
> Then, according to 'view source', all you sent was
> 
> To:
>  "me too. Was: Wow - for once, I sent a mail with a To: having more
>  characters than,my ISP's lame Message-id: header (which I have been told
>  has more,than enough bits in it to uniquely identify the age of every atom
>  in the,universe in nanoseconds, let a, cygwin-talk AT cygwin DOT com

  Sounds like a 255 char limit, yet RFC2822 says lines can be up to 998 chars
long, and that it is "incumbent" on Thunderbird to deal.  Then again,
truncating is a way of dealing...

> (Well, not quite - it used @ and . instead of AT and DOT).  Notice there
> was no closing quote!  How'd it even get delivered to me without a valid
> email address?  

  Ah, the wonders of the SMTP envelope!

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: who was that last message to again?

[Eric Blake]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Dave Korn on 4/30/2006 2:02 PM:
> 
>   Sounds like a 255 char limit, yet RFC2822 says lines can be up to 998 chars
> long, and that it is "incumbent" on Thunderbird to deal.  Then again,
> truncating is a way of dealing...

It wasn't Thunderbird doing the truncation.  When I looked at the mail in
my ISP's web portal before POP-ing it into Thunderbird, the damage had
already been done.  But speaking of truncation, I have already had a fair
share of messages chopped at the 998 limit in the body when I forgot to
PCYMTWLL.  Some MTAs merely insert a ! character and line wrap at position
998, in your behalf, but there are enough MTAs that just discard the
lengthy data to make long lines risky (maybe the OLOCA should be updated
to point this out?).  If only email clients would be more helpful and warn
you that the message you are about to send may be munged en route.  And
why can't more mailers be smart about encoding a leading From so that it
doesn't appear as >From on the receiving end?

- --
Life is short - so eat dessert first!

Eric Blake             ebb9@byu.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEVf3w84KuGfSFAYARAuwYAJwIzo/1HHlFW5B1pc86YnJ+x+5e2gCeNzwF
PrCA49mxdkUI65VZJ/XUdC8=
=Hof+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: who was that last message to again?

[Igor Peshansky]

On Mon, 1 May 2006, Eric Blake wrote:

> According to Dave Korn on 4/30/2006 2:02 PM:
> >
> >   Sounds like a 255 char limit, yet RFC2822 says lines can be up to
> > 998 chars long, and that it is "incumbent" on Thunderbird to deal.
> > Then again, truncating is a way of dealing...
>
> It wasn't Thunderbird doing the truncation.  When I looked at the mail in
> my ISP's web portal before POP-ing it into Thunderbird, the damage had
> already been done.  But speaking of truncation, I have already had a fair
> share of messages chopped at the 998 limit in the body when I forgot to
> PCYMTWLL.  Some MTAs merely insert a ! character and line wrap at position
> 998, in your behalf, but there are enough MTAs that just discard the
> lengthy data to make long lines risky (maybe the OLOCA should be updated
> to point this out?).

Done, though, IMO, this would be rarer, and only apply to buggy mailers
that don't encode line continuations properly.  It is possible to send out
a message that has very long lines encoded in chunks of 998 characters or
less, and still make it look awful in the archives.  But the better we can
scare them, the more chance they'll comply. :-)

> If only email clients would be more helpful and warn you that the
> message you are about to send may be munged en route.

Heh, you're assuming the people who write the front ends for the mailers
are aware of all of these restrictions... :-)

> And why can't more mailers be smart about encoding a leading From so
> that it doesn't appear as >From on the receiving end?

Yeah, that would be very nice.  But adding that '>' is so-o much easier,
isn't it?  According to the manual for my mailer (pine):
	The servers which handle the mail could be doing this before pine
	is even shown the message.

Outlook does quote the "F" in leading "From" as =46, IIRC, though I can't
find anything on Google on how to configure this in other mailers...
Anyone got a link?
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"