From: Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil@...>
Date: 2007-10-30T13:08:28+09:00
Subject: Re: Gateway Upgraded

James,

Unless anyone has anything to the contrary, per this RFC it looks like a bug.

I've quoted the RFC below.

James, could you give me a test case for it - or at least the email or
way you created the email and I'll get this nutted out.

Regards

Mikel

Quote from RFC 822:

 August 13, 1982               - 4 -                      RFC #822

     Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages

     3.  LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF MESSAGES

     3.1.  GENERAL DESCRIPTION

          A message consists of header fields and, optionally, a body.
     The  body  is simply a sequence of lines containing ASCII charac-
     ters.  It is separated from the headers by a null line  (i.e.,  a
     line with nothing preceding the CRLF).

     3.1.1.  LONG HEADER FIELDS

        Each header field can be viewed as a single, logical  line  of
        ASCII  characters,  comprising  a field-name and a field-body.
        For convenience, the field-body  portion  of  this  conceptual
        entity  can be split into a multiple-line representation; this
        is called "folding".  The general rule is that wherever  there
        may  be  linear-white-space  (NOT  simply  LWSP-chars), a CRLF
        immediately followed by AT LEAST one LWSP-char may instead  be
        inserted.  Thus, the single line

            To:  "Joe & J. Harvey" <ddd @Org>, JJV @ BBN

        can be represented as:

            To:  "Joe & J. Harvey" <ddd @ Org>,
                    JJV@BBN

        and

            To:  "Joe & J. Harvey"
                            <ddd@ Org>, JJV
             @BBN

        and

            To:  "Joe &
             J. Harvey" <ddd @ Org>, JJV @ BBN

             The process of moving  from  this  folded   multiple-line
        representation  of a header field to its single line represen-
        tation is called "unfolding".  Unfolding  is  accomplished  by
        regarding   CRLF   immediately  followed  by  a  LWSP-char  as
        equivalent to the LWSP-char.

        Note:  While the standard  permits  folding  wherever  linear-
               white-space is permitted, it is recommended that struc-
               tured fields, such as those containing addresses, limit
               folding  to higher-level syntactic breaks.  For address
               fields, it  is  recommended  that  such  folding  occur





On 10/30/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2007, at 7:55 PM, Mikel Lindsaar wrote:
>
> > Have you got it on TMail now?
>
> My new version uses TMail, yes.
>
> > If so and you hit bugs wrt TMail let me know...  we'll get them
> > fixed asap.
>
> I did have to revert because Usenet was rejecting my posts.  It's how
> TMail is doing the headers.  For example, TMail constructed a header
> like:
>
> "X-Ruby-Talk:\r\n\t<11152772-
> AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>\r\n"
>
> My Usenet host rejected that header because it didn't have a space
> after the colon.
>
> I'm hesitant to call that a bug since I'm trying to use an email
> library for Usenet posts.  Does anyone know if this is a strict
> requirement of Usenet posts and/or email?
>
> James Edward Gray II
>
>