Re: 'message contains bare newlines' - was Re: cyrus imapd 1.6.25 beta version
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:48:50 -0500 From: "David L. Parsley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] I remember people saying bare newlines violated RFC's, but shouldn't cyrus be as lenient as possible in what it accepts, and as compliant as possible in what it sends/produces? The authors of Cyrus have historically been leading proponents of "be liberal considered harmful", since it just leads to more software generated non-compliant protocol and we all end up in a bigger mess. The bare newlines-rejection has never been a problem for us; could it be that there's some local piece of software that tends to generate them a lot that should be fixed? I can't think of any ramifications to your fix, but it's unlikely we'll incorporate it into the base distribution. Larry
Re: 'message contains bare newlines' - was Re: cyrus imapd 1.6.25 beta version
"David L. Parsley" wrote: > > I've tried to dig through the archives a few times, but haven't found > good info on the problems people were having with 'message contains bare > newlines'. I get several of these a week from the linux kernel mailing > list. > > Messages like this get abandoned in /var/spool/mqueue; i.e., 'mailq' > doesn't list 'em, but 'ls /var/spool/mqueue' sure does! Essentially, it > seems like cyrus+sendmail just lets these messages drop on the floor - > yech! > > Any clue whether this behavior was fixed in .25beta? I took a quick > look at the code; nothing in the vicinity of the bare-newline check > appeared to have changed. So I just put in an (UGLY) little hack, which > munges a bare newline to an 'X'. I guess it would also be easy to make > cyrus just ignore these, but I thought an X might stand out so I'd see > where it's occuring. (not yet) > > I remember people saying bare newlines violated RFC's, but shouldn't > cyrus be as lenient as possible in what it accepts, and as compliant as > possible in what it sends/produces? I didn't do anything, nor do I know of anything that was done regarding bare newlines. I'll defer to Larry on this one. Ken -- Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd. Software Engineer 21 Princeton Place 716-662-8973 x26 Orchard Park, NY 14127 --PGP Public Key--http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp
'message contains bare newlines' - was Re: cyrus imapd 1.6.25 beta version
I've tried to dig through the archives a few times, but haven't found good info on the problems people were having with 'message contains bare newlines'. I get several of these a week from the linux kernel mailing list. Messages like this get abandoned in /var/spool/mqueue; i.e., 'mailq' doesn't list 'em, but 'ls /var/spool/mqueue' sure does! Essentially, it seems like cyrus+sendmail just lets these messages drop on the floor - yech! Any clue whether this behavior was fixed in .25beta? I took a quick look at the code; nothing in the vicinity of the bare-newline check appeared to have changed. So I just put in an (UGLY) little hack, which munges a bare newline to an 'X'. I guess it would also be easy to make cyrus just ignore these, but I thought an X might stand out so I'd see where it's occuring. (not yet) I remember people saying bare newlines violated RFC's, but shouldn't cyrus be as lenient as possible in what it accepts, and as compliant as possible in what it sends/produces? regards, David P.S. Thanks for all the work you guys are doing on cyrus - other than a few glitches early on, it's been working real well here at the college. Ken Murchison wrote: > > John Holman wrote: > > > > > I've thrown a tarball containing cyrus imapd 1.6.25 at > > > > > > ftp://ftp.andrew.cmu.edu/pub/cyrus-mail/BETA/cyrus-imapd-1.6.25.tar.gz > > > > > > If no one has any (serious) complaints in the next two days, I'll move > > > this file up one level and announce it widely. > > > > I can't find any such announcement - what's the current status? Is there a > > list of changes between this and 1.6.24? > > Here's the list of changes that I *know* are in 1.6.25 because I checked > them in myself. What (if anything) else Larry might have put in, I > don't know. I'm now running 2.x, so I haven't looked at the 1.6 code in > a while. If you're *really* curious, just check CVS yourself. > >- added tcl 8.2 to configure >- 'const'-ified deliver/timsieved/test to match sieve prototypes >- added 'singleinstancestore', 'sendmail', 'postmaster' and > 'imapidresponse' imapd.conf options >- added sendmail error strings >- fixed sendmail child process bug (vacation, redirect, reject) >- use empty return address for sieve actions which use sendmail >- added in-reply-to header to vacation responses >- changed auto-submitted header keyword to auto-replied > (matches upcoming sendmail 8.12) >- fixed ending boundary for vacation MIME responses >- more paranoid ID implementation >- SEARCH HEADER fix (only searches header content) >- mboxname fix (tjs's UTF-7 fix) >- installsieve/timsieved disable script fixes >- sieve fixes: >* makefile fixes >* subaddress fixes >* vacation fixes >* STOP fix > > Ken > -- > Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd. > Software Engineer 21 Princeton Place > 716-662-8973 x26 Orchard Park, NY 14127 > --PGP Public Key--http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp -- David L. Parsley Network Administrator Roanoke College
Re: cyrus imapd 1.6.25 beta version
From: "John Holman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:57:03 - > I've thrown a tarball containing cyrus imapd 1.6.25 at > > ftp://ftp.andrew.cmu.edu/pub/cyrus-mail/BETA/cyrus-imapd-1.6.25.tar.gz > > If no one has any (serious) complaints in the next two days, I'll move > this file up one level and announce it widely. Unfortunately, there was a very small fix to timsieved that I wanted to fix for a 1.6.26 gamma release. This provoked such a state of despair in me that I started sulking and never did the release. (Going from cvs to a release tarball, especially in 1.6, is a bigger pain than it should be.) I can't find any such announcement - what's the current status? Is there a list of changes between this and 1.6.24? Ken posted a pretty good list of this. Larry
Re: cyrus imapd 1.6.25 beta version
John Holman wrote: > > > I've thrown a tarball containing cyrus imapd 1.6.25 at > > > > ftp://ftp.andrew.cmu.edu/pub/cyrus-mail/BETA/cyrus-imapd-1.6.25.tar.gz > > > > If no one has any (serious) complaints in the next two days, I'll move > > this file up one level and announce it widely. > > I can't find any such announcement - what's the current status? Is there a > list of changes between this and 1.6.24? Here's the list of changes that I *know* are in 1.6.25 because I checked them in myself. What (if anything) else Larry might have put in, I don't know. I'm now running 2.x, so I haven't looked at the 1.6 code in a while. If you're *really* curious, just check CVS yourself. - added tcl 8.2 to configure - 'const'-ified deliver/timsieved/test to match sieve prototypes - added 'singleinstancestore', 'sendmail', 'postmaster' and 'imapidresponse' imapd.conf options - added sendmail error strings - fixed sendmail child process bug (vacation, redirect, reject) - use empty return address for sieve actions which use sendmail - added in-reply-to header to vacation responses - changed auto-submitted header keyword to auto-replied (matches upcoming sendmail 8.12) - fixed ending boundary for vacation MIME responses - more paranoid ID implementation - SEARCH HEADER fix (only searches header content) - mboxname fix (tjs's UTF-7 fix) - installsieve/timsieved disable script fixes - sieve fixes: * makefile fixes * subaddress fixes * vacation fixes * STOP fix Ken -- Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd. Software Engineer 21 Princeton Place 716-662-8973 x26 Orchard Park, NY 14127 --PGP Public Key--http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp
Re: cyrus imapd 1.6.25 beta version
> I've thrown a tarball containing cyrus imapd 1.6.25 at > > ftp://ftp.andrew.cmu.edu/pub/cyrus-mail/BETA/cyrus-imapd-1.6.25.tar.gz > > If no one has any (serious) complaints in the next two days, I'll move > this file up one level and announce it widely. I can't find any such announcement - what's the current status? Is there a list of changes between this and 1.6.24? Thanks, John.
