Dustin Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Show me a Win32 mailer that has integrated contact management, > journalling, and scheduling, along with a word-based junk mail and adult > mail filter, with a little bit of programmability tossed in for good > measure, and I'm sold. Gnus running under XEmacs on Win32 certainly has the programmability and the filtering capabilities, it's a full-blown editor with pretty extensive capabilities for filing sent mail and keeping track of time and the like so journalling is probably easily doable although I'm not quite sure what you mean, and bbdb is a better contact management package than I've seen anywhere else. Unfortunately, that does leave scheduling, which so far as I know it doesn't do. > But somewhere out there, someone's sending mail that, either by their > own MUA or MTA, or the qmail-list's MTA, is not comformant to standards. I still am finding this somewhat unlikely. qmail itself is unlikely to be at fault, as it really doesn't do much to message bodies at all, and I somehow don't think ezmlm has bugs that have gone unnoticed this long in terms of standard compliance. > Someone has mentioned previously that messages that have too many > newlines in the header (or something of that nature) will cause Outlook > 2000 to barf. Well, then -- a message like that violates the RFC's for > e-mail, doesn't it? Or am I wrong here. Depends on what that person specifically meant. Newlines certainly aren't illegal in message headers. > I guess the bottom line is: When it comes to reading e-mail, Outlook > 2000 (et. al.) are strict in what they're expecting, and messages that > violate the related standards cause it to choke in some fashion or > another. This really hasn't been my experience with Outlook. > To help debug this, I have enclosed a message that recently showed up in > Outlook with no "From:" in the message list, and with all message > headers in the body of the message (Outlook doesn't display any message > headers, its only fault, IMHO). Well, your enclosed message contains multiple Received headers that have been word-wrapped; if that's actually happening before you get the message, that would explain the problem, but I don't know how that would be happening as I'm certainly not seeing that from messages to the list. Take a look, though, at: > Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp > (8.9.3/3.7W-MX9912-Fujitsu Gateway) > id MAA08812 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:49:38 +0900 (JST) > (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > Received: from fsas.fujitsu.co.jp by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp > (8.9.3/3.7W-9912-Fujitsu Domain Master) > id MAA23535; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:49:37 +0900 (JST) > Received: from CL973712 (cl973710.fsas.fujitsu.co.jp [172.21.2.218]) > by fsas.fujitsu.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7WFsas Mail Server) with SMTP id > MAA07002 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:49:36 +0900 (JST) My assumption, though, is that this is being done by your MUA in the process of sending out the mail and that the mail as you received it didn't look like that. The only other thing that I see here that could possibly be a problem is that this message is labelled as being ISO-2022-JP; perhaps Outlook can't cope correctly with that character set? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Other than that, the message certainly looks fully standards-compliant to me. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
