On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 01:23:38AM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 23:21:51 +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 09:02:21PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > [...] > > > From the SMTP definition (RFC-822): > > > > "1. Before sending a line of mail text the sender-SMTP checks > > the first character of the line. If it is a period, one > > additional period is inserted at the beginning of the line." > > > > The above first line, ".one dot", couldn't possibly have been produced > > legally by a compliant Sender-SMTP. The second line would be produced by > > one sending ".two dots". > > You are right, but I was experimenting (btw it is RFC-821).
Damn, you're right. > [...] > > >> (I also tried with a line > >> containing only a dot and a blank immediately following it, and > >> sendmail does not touched it). > > > > Strange. According to the same doc: > > > > "2. When a line of mail text is received by the receiver-SMTP > > it checks the line. If the line is composed of a single > > period it is the end of mail. If the first character is a > > period and there are other characters on the line, the first > > character is deleted." > > > > So this would be non-conformant behaviour. Are you sure? > > Yes, I am sure. I tried it several times. This is also strange to me for > the reason below. Actually _in practice_ it is irrelevant, as a line with "." in position 1 and something else in position 2 cannot be legally found "in transit". So the assumption that character 2 is a period is legal. > [...] > > > Yes, according to rfc1939 POP3 transmission handles (escapes/unescapes) > > the "termination octet" (dot) in the same way as rfc822. > > > >> IMHO this is not a lyx problem and I should say that it seems I judged > >> wrongly both TB and OE, which seem to do the "right thing". > >> Indeed, when I reported that TB was showing me a different thing from > >> what I was seeing looking at an email with vim, I was not aware of the > >> fact that TB was showing the html part of the email, which indeed was > >> correct! > > > > So, did you diagnose the original problem as due to XCmail only? > > At least in my case I am convinced of this. I also tried to send with > XCmail a mail to the same mailhost with the following body (I am using "|" > to start a line as I am replying with XCmail ;-) > > |.one dot > |..two dots > |. > |end > > and received the following: > > |one dot > |.two dots > > i.e., I lost everything after the "." on a line by itself and the dot on > the first line was missing. I don't know why when I directly talk with > sendmail this does not happen. This means that XCmail simply does not contain the dot transparency mechanism for POP3. _At all_. > Alas, to my knowledge, XCmail is the only mailer with a GUI which lets me > open a mailbox in whatever place on disk or network it is located. > I hope that someday someone writes a GUI for mutt ;-) Add dot transparency yourself. Cannot be very hard :-) > -- > Enrico - Martin
pgpmiWXjDiST7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
