Russell Nelson writes...
> > But I'm not sure I see where this is going. Qmail would never deliver
> > such a message, it would barf. The case you are also stating in specifically
> > one of delivery, where local newline standards come into play. What about
> > the case of transport?
>
>Qmail does not distinguish between delivery and transport, therefore
>it can store the messages in a file which use newlines for a line
>terminator.
Well, sort of. It doesn't distinguish between delivery and transport
in the sense that it coerces all tranported message into a local
delivery format.
Is this supposed to be a qmail feature?
>Thus, qmail cannot accept bare newlines, since such a
>message cannot be reconstructed once it's been in a queue or mailbox
>file.
Cannot be reconstructed? You have entirely lost me. Is that exactly
the question you posed me, reconstructing a message with embedded
bare LF's? Was something wrong with my answer?
It also sounds like you are saying that qmail must refuse to transport
messages that it doesn't have the local ability to reconstruct. That
seems awfully presumptuous of qmail, denying transport say, to sendmail,
simply on the basis of some potential ambiguity in qmail's local
delivery environment and projecting that ambiguity onto the target
delivery enviroment. It's entirely possible the the recipient MTA
at the end of the transport has no such ambiguity, why in the world would
qmail try to enforce such a silly restriction? Qmail is saying, "I AM
QMAIL, IF THIS MAIL WAS DESTINED FOR LOCAL DELIVERY I WOULDN'T KNOW
WHAT TO DO WITH IT, THEREFORE I WILL REFUSE TO TRANSPORT IT TO ANOTHER
MTA THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY BE ABLE TO DELIVER IT WITH NO AMBIGUITY." Pretty
damn cheeky.
--
Aaron Nabil
