[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:12:32 -0400 |
>Well, at least it does if I'm doing comp, whatnow, mime, edit. If I run
>mhbuild(1) then it always gives quoted-printable.
>
> $ mhbuild -
> #<text/plain *b64
> a£d
> w£z
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-MD5: wrfRnlkZxzaLuNL9h63JVA==
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> a=C2=A3d
> w=C2=A3z
That does not look like a valid mhbuild composition file? Specifically,
you're missing some headers; I suspect it didn't read the directive at all.
>Also, it SEGVs without the `/plain'. Probably because get_ctinfo()'s
>
> 685 if (*cp != '/') {
> 686 if (!magic)
> 687 ci->ci_subtype = mh_xstrdup("");
> 688 goto magic_skip;
> 689 }
>
>skips 687 because "It's magic!".
Whoops! Yeah, will fix that for 1.7.
>> > We don't insist on CRLF when receiving RFC 5322, right.
>>
>> Right ... I was just musing that maybe we should.
>
>My inner facist system administrator says yes. Postel's maxim is wrong.
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong-00
Sigh.
I understand where you are coming from, really. But ... practical concerns
raise their ugly heads, again.
First ... when we get invalid input, how should we react? It's a fair
question. Secondly, we seem to be alone in terms of strictness with regards
to parsing MIME messages; other MUAs seem to handle MIME content with
slightly irregular grammar just fine. I'm not suggesting we be able to
handle anything that /dev/urandom puts out, but it seems that erroring out
and refusing to parse email makes it difficult for us to operate in the
real world.
>> If we did that, a regular expression to handle a line ending with \r\n
>> would be trivial.
>
>If it were to allow /\r?\n/ then I think it should insist on consistency
>for all the lines based on the first. But really, the lexer should be
>told which one of the two is valid at the start.
Another switch to add to all programs? Ugh. I also understand why you ask
about that, but it seems like that might make the lexer more complicated
than it needs to be.
--Ken
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/08/20
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ken Hornstein, 2017/08/23
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/08/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ken Hornstein, 2017/08/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, David Levine, 2017/08/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ken Hornstein, 2017/08/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, David Levine, 2017/08/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ken Hornstein, 2017/08/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/08/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/08/29
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail,
Ken Hornstein <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ken Hornstein, 2017/08/29
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, valdis . kletnieks, 2017/08/29
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/08/29
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ken Hornstein, 2017/08/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/08/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ken Hornstein, 2017/08/30
- Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/08/19
Re: [Nmh-workers] mhfixmsg on a pathological mail, David Levine, 2017/08/18