Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBB49FB3FC; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:06:47 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02954-02; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:06:47 -0400 (AST) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1D89FB3FB; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:06:46 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F254118DDA0; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:06:41 -0400 (AST) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02566-06; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:06:43 -0400 (AST) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-137-79-174.eastlink.ca [24.137.79.174]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D4F118B40A; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:06:36 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B9C5C241; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:06:46 -0400 (AST) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:06:46 -0400 From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Bruce Momjian , "Marc G. Fournier" cc: Andrew Sullivan , PostgreSQL www Subject: Re: Email issues unanswered Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200701292336.l0TNata12560@momjian.us> References: <200701292336.l0TNata12560@momjian.us> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200701/123 X-Sequence-Number: 11390 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Even while discussing this, I sent an emamil off to one of the Mj2 developers, and apparently they did make some changes from the past thread, that I didn't know of ... seems that Alvarro talked to them, but nobody let *me* know to upgrade our Mj2 :( Working on that now ... we'll see if that fixes it ... will post a follow up once its been upgraded ... - --On Monday, January 29, 2007 18:36:55 -0500 Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >> >> - --On Monday, January 29, 2007 18:11:38 -0500 Bruce Momjian >> wrote: >> >> > My long subject email going out looks like: >> > >> > From bruce Fri Jan 26 21:00:37 2007 >> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQL >> > branches >> >> Looks like something has add a carriage return at the end of PostgreSQL, >> which breaks the RFC ... if it was all one line (as per the RFC quote that >> Andrew > > Yes, my emaler does that, but see below on the RFC issue. > >> sent), it wouldn't have gone through (as per the valid long Subject that I >> just sent to you) ... >> >> You are talking about 'multi line' (against RFCs) vs 'long subjects that >> wrap' (not against RFCs) ... > > Right, I am talking about multi-line, and here is the RFC part Andrew > mentioned: > > 2.2.3. Long Header Fields > > Each header field is logically a single line of characters comprising > the field name, the colon, and the field body. For convenience > however, and to deal with the 998/78 character limitations per line, > the field body portion of a header field can be split into a multiple > line representation; this is called "folding". The general rule is > > that wherever this standard allows for folding white space (not > simply WSP characters), a CRLF may be inserted before any WSP. For > example, the header field: > > Subject: This is a test > > can be represented as: > > Subject: This > is a test > > Note: Though structured field bodies are defined in such a way that > folding can take place between many of the lexical tokens (and even > within some of the lexical tokens), folding SHOULD be limited to > placing the CRLF at higher-level syntactic breaks. For instance, if > a field body is defined as comma-separated values, it is recommended > that folding occur after the comma separating the structured items in > preference to other places where the field could be folded, even if > it is allowed elsewhere. > > The process of moving from this folded multiple-line representation > of a header field to its single line representation is called > "unfolding". Unfolding is accomplished by simply removing any CRLF > that is immediately followed by WSP. Each header field should be > treated in its unfolded form for further syntactic and semantic > evaluation. > > It seems clear here that my emailer is fine and following the RFC. > > -- > Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com > > + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFvqg24QvfyHIvDvMRAgdSAJ9idCefqGq05fmPB7ousOZR5LUJ2wCff6cJ BUALcDAzSayAzBqXktzcR6k= =1Z4W -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----