IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: client requests ending \012

Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> Wed, 26 July 2000 16:13 UTC

Received: from cs.utk.edu (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14104 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:13:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA26192; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:13:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:13:22 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA26175; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:13:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA26147; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:13:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (130.88.200.94 -> probity.mcc.ac.uk) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:13:17 -0400
Received: from nessie.mcc.ac.uk ([130.88.200.20] ident=root) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #4) id 13HTo3-000HCg-00 for drums@cs.utk.edu; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:13:15 +0100
Received: from clw.cs.man.ac.uk (clerew.man.ac.uk [194.66.22.208]) by nessie.mcc.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA77407 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:13:13 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from root@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Received: (from root@localhost) by clw.cs.man.ac.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA26417 for drums@cs.utk.edu; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:02:02 +0100 (BST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clw.cs.man.ac.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA26414 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:02:01 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200007261602.RAA26414@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:02:01 +0100
From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: client requests ending \012
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-MD5: o4jz2AJ87YjQmH8CgAqcCA==
X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 CDE Version 1.3 SunOS 5.7 sun4m sparc
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>

	On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:35:37 +0100 (BST)
	Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk> said...

> 
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
> 
> > The actual text from 2.3.7 reads:
> > 
> >     Conforming
> >     implementations MUST NOT recognize or generate any other character or
> >     character sequence as a line terminator.
> > 
> > "MUST NOT recognize" is what is being discussed here.
> 
> Quite. This seems to be a tightening up of the "be liberal in what you 
> accept" philosophy. On the one hand, I would like to see this, but on 
> the other hand, I don't believe you can achieve it, because it would 
> require vast numbers of deployed MTAs to change more or less
> simultaneously. The genie is out of the bottle, as I keep saying.

This sound like a classic case for saying "SHOULD NOT recognize".
You are only suppose to say MUST NOT if something would otherwise
immediately break, which does not seem to be the case here.

	On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 03:17:23 -0700
	Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> said...

> 
> The problem, again, is that LF.LF causes ambiguity, and so this business
> about being liberal in what you accept is not relevant.  One should not
> be liberal in what one accepts at the expense of not being able to
> accept legitimate text.

What precisely is the ambiguity? Naked LF should not be found in a
conforming message, so if a server chooses to be liberal when it sees
same are there two possible interpretations it could place? If not,
there is no ambiguity.

Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email:     chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk  Web:   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9     Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7  65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email