Re: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Thu, 19 July 2012 00:42 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F67311E81D6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 D-zi5p5DHCpL for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84BBC11E81D5 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67E7BC95B9; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:43:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:1c27:6a6c:c6b:b42b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34581216C36; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:42:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924F022AE699; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:42:52 +1000 (EST)
To: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <221B8D89-0B8E-498A-9C8C-74CC3D305FD1@apple.com> <20120717035100.92FF9228F4FE@drugs.dv.isc.org> <D41807CF-B7F5-4770-8FB5-F0630AA4F22B@apple.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:52:13 MST." <D41807CF-B7F5-4770-8FB5-F0630AA4F22B@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:42:52 +1000
Message-Id: <20120719004252.924F022AE699@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:42:19 -0000

In message <D41807CF-B7F5-4770-8FB5-F0630AA4F22B@apple.com>om>, Stuart Cheshire wr
ites:
> On 16 Jul, 2012, at 20:50, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> > Stuart,
> > 	your mail client botched the Content-type line generation.
> > You may want to report it.
> >
> > 	Content-type: image/png; x-unix-mode=0644; name=Whatis&#39;  
> > "?.png"=""
> > 	Content-transfer-encoding: base64
> > 	Content-disposition: inline; filename="What is &#39; ?.png"
> >
> > Mark
> 
> Mark, your tone sounds very confident that you're absolutely certain  
> that you know exactly what botched what, and whose fault it is.
> 
> I'll reserve judgement until I actually know what happened, but what  
> I can tell you is this: Viewing the outgoing TCP packets with  
> tcpflow, this is what my mail client sends on-the-wire to the SMTP  
> relay:
> 
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> Content-Type: image/png;
> 	x-unix-mode=0644;
> 	name=What is &#39; ?.png
> Content-Disposition: inline;
> 	filename="What is &#39; ?.png"

Which isn't a syntactically valid Content-Type header (RFC 1341).
 
> By the time you received the email, Mark, it had been rewritten to  
> the form you showed. As to what intermediary (or intermediaries)  
> contributed to that rewriting, I do not yet know.

It may have been re-written but Garbage In - Garbage Out.
 
> It's ironic that this problem occurs in the midst of a discussion of  
> the problems of escaping and message framing. The reality seems to be  
> that unless we keep things supremely simple, we can't hope to have  
> all programmers get it right in all cases. If there's exactly one  
> valid form for a string, then maybe we can hope to have that  
> implemented properly. When there are different representations of the  
> same string in different contexts, the probability of everyone  
> getting it right in all contexts pretty much approaches zero.

It was slightly ironic.

> Slightly off-topic, I'm told that at least some mail clients  
> truncated my original email at the line "unintentionally leaked  
> through into the user interface."
> 
> As composed on my Mac, there was some introductory text, then two  
> images, then the bulk of the text, as it appears in the archive:
> 
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg16128.html>
> 
> Apparently some mail clients turned the second chunk of body text  
> into an attachment.
> 
> I'm curious as to how widespread this issue is -- I might have to be  
> more careful about where I put images in my email messages in the  
> future.
> 
> Could people send me a quick private email saying what mail client  
> they use and whether it:
> 
> 1. Showed the entire message as I composed it with the two images  
> displayed in-line (like the archive).
> 2. Showed the entire text of the message, but with the two images as  
> attachments (Gmail shows it this way).
> 3. Showed only the first five paragraphs of text, with the two images  
> and remaining text as attachments.
> 
> I'll summarize results to the list.
> 
> Stuart Cheshire
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org