Hello.  

I just stumbled over the fact that mutt turns

  From MAILER-DAEMON-nono-0 Wed Oct  2 01:50:07 1996

  This is a body, but not a valid message

(multiply .. or so .. to create a mulit-member mbox)
into a "valid" message.
I wonder where this comes from (realizing though that for example
git-mailsplit does it likewise).  'Thing is that RFC 4155 is lala,
but for example qmail-mbox from ~1996
  [curl -I http://qmail.org./man/man5/mbox.html
  ...
  Last-Modified: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 21:07:07 GMT
  ...]
says

    Between the From_ line and the blank line is a message in
    RFC 822 format, as described in qmail-header(5), subject to
    >From quoting as described below.

where already RFC 822 requires at least Date: and From: (aka "two
header fields"), and POSIX states for mailx, OUTPUT FILES,

  line beginning with From<space>
  [one or more header fields; see Commands in mailx (on page 3112)]
  empty line
  [zero or more body lines
  empty line]
  [line beginning with From<space>...]

the weaker "one or more header fields".

I have to rewrite "my thing" after bailing for a message seen on
the 9front list (for which public-inbox and others completely
failed; mutt only suppresses several lines because of "faulty
header detection", among others (trailing WSP of lots of lines)),
and whereas an existing unit test

  Leading text, what to do with it?

  From MAILER-DAEMON-nono-0 Wed Oct  2 01:50:07 1996

  This is a body, but not a valid message

  From MAILER-DAEMON-2 Wed Oct  2 01:50:07 1996
  ToMakeItHappen: header

  From MAILER-DAEMON-nono-1 Wed Oct  2 01:50:07 1996

  This is a body, but not a valid message, 2

  From MAILER-DAEMON-4 Wed Oct  2 01:50:07 1996
  One: header

  From MAILER-DAEMON-nono-2 Wed Oct  2 01:50:07 1996

  From MAILER-DAEMON-nono-3 Wed Oct  2 01:50:07 1996

  From MAILER-DAEMON-nono-4 Wed Oct  2 01:50:07 1996

  And do foolish things

  From MAILER-DAEMON-6 Wed Oct  2 01:50:07 1996
  One: two
  three

is not recognized by mutt, yet after removing leading text we see

   1 N   Oct 01 MAILER-DAEMON-n (   1)
   2 N   Oct 01 MAILER-DAEMON-2 (  0K)
   3 N   Oct 01 MAILER-DAEMON-n (   1)
   4 N   Oct 01 MAILER-DAEMON-4 (  0K)
   5 N   Oct 01 MAILER-DAEMON-n (  0K)
   6 N   Oct 01 MAILER-DAEMON-n (  0K)
   7 N   Oct 01 MAILER-DAEMON-n (   1)
   8 N   Oct 01 MAILER-DAEMON-6 (0.1K)

my one sofar gives

  ▸N    1 MAILER-DAEMON-nono-0              Wed Oct  2 01:50     4/     93
   N    2 MAILER-DAEMON-2                   Wed Oct  2 01:50     7/    166
   N    3 MAILER-DAEMON-4                   Wed Oct  2 01:50    11/    238
   N    4 MAILER-DAEMON-6                   Wed Oct  2 01:50     4/     62

(I am about to add MIME boundary search mode instead of From_
search if we have a MIME message, as a protection measure of false
From_ quoting.  Long on my TODO list, and that email beat me to
it; though the actual problem was a different one, yet i did not
realize that until having a long and deep look.)

It is also that, if i fake that very bad email, and change it to
(cat -vet):

  ...
  Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit $
   $
  From .. a From_ line

then mutt splits that into two messages, whereas my own until now
says (it gives a lot of complaints, also to the above, btw)

  Not a header line, skipping: 'From ...'
  Malformed message: headers and body not separated (with empty line)

which is no good since of course it can be "0 or more" body lines,
so we should possibly / likely re-enable From_ check even if we
are in header follow-up mode.
(This would not hurt if MIME boundary check would be used, one
reason i want to have that... what i thought at first; note the
software is still in bad shape, with two distinct program flows,
and that here cannot MIME re-encode a message to what would be
necessary according to RFC 4155, but maximally MBOXO quote stuff.)

So dunno, but i thought maybe someone is interested of hearing
that.

Ciao,

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)

Reply via email to