Hello! Vernon Schryver wrote: >> Looks like a sign of the beginning of a query string missing: >> news.cxxxxx.comid=xxxxxx -> news.cxxxxx.com?id=xxxxxx >> (but I do not know whether it was in the raw message) > > I don't see anything that should be done for news.cxxxxx.comid=xxxxxx > There is no way to know that "comid" should have been "com?id" > instead of new TLD comid
There are many such URLs in my e-mail traffic. It seems that this is a problem with URL parsing. I will try to catch a raw message for better bug reporting. > Do any popular mail user agents treat the strings > "http://xxx.example.com;"; "http://xxx.example.com,"; or > "http://xxx.example.com)" as "<http://xxx.example.com>;" etc? I did several tests on: thunderbird, kmail and microsoft outlook Examples from my real e-mail traffic: --- 1. http://xxx.example.com) http://xxx.example.com), http://xxx.example.com: http://xxx.example.com] http://xxx.example.com]: - thunderbird and outlook consider it as a valid http://xxx.example.com/ but not kmail 2. http://xxx.example.com, - all of my mail agents consider it as a valid http://xxx.example.com/ 3. http://xxx.example.com\240 http://xxx.example.com\cell - outlook convert it into valid: http://xxx.example.com/240 and http://xxx.example.com/cell but not thunderbird and kmail 4. http://xxx.example.com%c2%a0 http://xxx.example.com%2f http://xxx.example.com%2f) - no one --- =kostik _______________________________________________ DCC mailing list [email protected] http://www.rhyolite.com/mailman/listinfo/dcc
