Re: Cygwin patches for 2002e
Eduardo: I think what Mark was saying was that simultaneous access to an mbx mailbox from various incarnations of pine MAY not work correctly under an MS-DOS implementation of windows. If only one incarnation of pine is running, the mbx SHOULD be readable. If your users *insist* on running two or more incarnations of pine to access the same mailbox, the results probably will be unpredictable. Regards, Gregory Hicks Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:52:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Eduardo Chappa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mark Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Abe Backus [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cygwin patches for 2002e *** Mark Crispin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote today: :) On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Eduardo Chappa wrote: :) There is no way I can predict what a user will do when using Pine, :) and you must know very well that ignoring a possible case is one of :) the main reasons why users report bugs, so I would like to offer a :) full featured (or as much complete as possible) software for people :) in Cygwin. This means that if they want simultaneous access to a :) mailbox, they'll need to get it if the format of the mailbox allows :) it. :) :) Once again... :) :) Simultaneous access in the mbx format requires meaningful file locking. :) :) There is no such thing as meaningful file locking in Windows 98. :) Windows 98 is not a real operating system. Nor are Windows 95, Windows :) Me, Windows 3.1, MS-DOS, Mac OS 9 (and earlier), etc. Mark, Does this mean that the changes that you are accepting into C-client will make Pine not work in Windows 9X when using mbx style folders?. I believe you are trying to say that, but it is not completely clear. Your answer is about locking, not about mbx style folders. I just want to be sure that the answer to my question is yes. Can you confirm or deny this, please? Thanks. Have a nice day. Eduardo http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/ --- Gregory Hicks| Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1 | Fax: 408.894.3400 San Jose, CA 95134 | Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The trouble with doing anything right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was. When a team of dedicated individuals makes a commitment to act as one... the sky's the limit. Just because We've always done it that way is not necessarily a good reason to continue to do so... Grace Hopper, Rear Admiral, United States Navy
Re: Re[2]: bouncing/redirecting messages
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:12:54 +0200 (CET) From: Vadim Zeitlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re[2]: bouncing/redirecting messages On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:49:45 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) Mark Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MC c) don't set any other fields, in particular from, reply-to, sender MC MC You SHOULD sent from, in order to generate a ReSent-From header. Thanks! I should have read (2)822 better myself... However when I tried to compensate for this by reading it carefully now I found 2 more questions related to the following extracts from the section 3.6.6 or the RFC 2822: 1. The Resent-Message-ID: field SHOULD be sent. How important is this requirment? I don't generate the Message-ID header for the normal messages as I believe it's not the MUAs job at all (whatever Pine does). Is Resent-Message-ID really somehow different from the normal header or is there really a good reason to add it? Same as the 'normal' Message-ID header but with Resent- in front of it. 2. All of the resent fields corresponding to a particular resending of the message SHOULD be together. Each new set of resent fields is prepended to the message; that is, the most recent set of resent fields appear earlier in the message. The first requirment is satisfied by c-client, however the second one is not as the Resent-XXX fields appear after all the others -- and, apparently, this was done intentionally. Is this correct? Also, this seems to imply that Resent-XXX fields should *not* be quoted as Pine does, does anyone have any additional insights into this (BTW, thanks to David Funk for this reply about the Received: header)? They should not be quoted at all. I just used Pine at my ISP to bounce a message back to me. This is what the relevant headers looked like: (I cut out all the Received: headers...) --- Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:35:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Gregory Hicks ghicks Reply-To: Gregory Hicks ghicks Subject: Testing Resent headers To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-MD5: L+Hwhro/C63q2OK55SLuAw== X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.4.2 SunOS 5.8 sun4u sparc X-UIDL: b388a23b7d96c6d12fe5374354b375c4 ReSent-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:35:33 -0700 (PDT) ReSent-From: Gregory Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReSent-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReSent-Subject: Testing Resent headers ReSent-Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 611 --- The above are correct and seem to be what I have seen over the past X years [1] of sending email... The above is the 'proper' way to resend email. MUAs like dtmail, Outlook, Netscape and such do not do it properly. My $0.02 worth. Regards, Gregory Hicks Postmaster, Cadence.COM [1] Where X is a large number 30, but at least seeing the headers since 1984... - Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1 | Fax: 408.894.3479 San Jose, CA 95134 | Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity. Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton
