IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Review of: draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-03

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Sun, 19 May 2013 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3207D21F8E6E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 May 2013 14:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.203, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xJJeEs0ptUXg for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 May 2013 14:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1982921F8E84 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 May 2013 14:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OTU1EPTYZ4006JBH@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Sun, 19 May 2013 14:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OTLPL3VY1C000054@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sun, 19 May 2013 14:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01OTU1ENPZX4000054@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 14:24:58 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sat, 18 May 2013 23:00:24 -0400" <alpine.BSF.2.00.1305182237110.74365@joyce.lan>
References: <01OTO93GD6L2000054@mauve.mrochek.com> <20130515202613.24981.qmail@joyce.lan> <01OTOENRSJ6Q000054@mauve.mrochek.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1305152133120.63512@joyce.lan> <CAL0qLwb8gzOvC6eXmg+0+etuiTrdRMQyNBOk7BMns-Csfj4Wxw@mail.gmail.com> <01OTSF48H616000054@mauve.mrochek.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1305182237110.74365@joyce.lan>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of: draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-03
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 21:34:33 -0000

> This is more a question for Ned: in section 7, how much legitimate mail do
> you still see with bare CR or LF?  It is my impression that the bugs that
> caused those things were fixed a long time ago.

Still see bare LFs occasionally. Bare CRs seem to have vanished along with the
use of MacOS versions prior to X, which AFAIK is the only platform of any
significance at all that ever used bare CR as a line terminator.

I considered recommending treating bare CR like null, but I can't see that
it matters all that much.

				Ned

v2.34.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status