Kind of OT: guess what I found!
t.d.lee at durham.ac.uk
Mon Feb 23 12:30:39 GMT 2009
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Steve Freegard wrote:
> David Lee wrote:
>> I wonder whether if might be the "Message-ID" in Julian's emails?
>> Here are some of the headers. The 'Message-ID' is wrapped ("folded" in
>> RFC822 terminology), contains spaces, commas and a tab; the tab is
>> probably the result of the folding. RFC822 suggests that 'msg-id'
>> should be "<" addr-spec ">". (As I read it, if its syntax wouldn't be a
>> valid email address, then it wouldn't be a valid 'msg-id' either.)
>> Chasing down the syntax from there suggests that such a 'Message-ID'
>> would seem borderline at best; my suspicion is that it is beyond the
>> borders. Even if such a Message-ID is technically legal, the "be
>> conservative in what you send" principle might suggest considering a
> Hmmm - we recently made changes to the method used for modifying the
> Message-ID; however something appears to be mangling it. The actual
> Message-ID is sent as:
> <EMEW,l1KAsk0c15677e2728c1a4bcf90ab66afb3922,MailScanner%ecs.soton.ac.uk,499FDD6E.9030908 at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> e.g. there are no spaces in the string (as you correct point out this
> would not be RFC valid if there were spaces within it).
Thanks for the ack, Steve.
But would even your intended (space-less) version be legal? It contains
commas. Chasing down the RFC822 syntax:
msg-id = "<" addr-spec ">"
addr-spec = local-part "@" domain
local-part = word *("." word)
word = atom / quoted-string
atom = 1*<any CHAR except specials, SPACE and CTLs>
and 'specials' includes ",".
Won't the embedded "," still put you on the wrong side of the law?
: David Lee I.T. Service :
: Senior Systems Programmer Computer Centre :
: UNIX Team Leader Durham University :
: South Road :
: http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/ Durham DH1 3LE :
: Phone: +44 191 334 2752 U.K. :
More information about the MailScanner