hurtta+z3at_private wrote: > > I was reminded of this again recently because a Notes user on another > > list complained that a list "control" message they sent was bounced. > > That list processer reads its commands from the Subject: line and > > it turned out that the combination of Notes client and Notes SMTP > > gateway happily sent a non-standards compliant message, failing to > > put the required blank line at the end of the message header block. > > It was the SMTP server on the list processer machine, not the list > > processor, that rejected the message, and it did so because it was > > not a valid message according to the standards (a message can have a > > null body but the header block ends with the first blank line). > > Well, > > Actually message standards (or RFC 822 actually) doe snot requile that blank line, > if message do not have body. > > Note that grammar is: > > message = fields *( CRLF *text ) ; Everything after > ; first null line > ; is message body > Therefore > > message = fields > > is also valid (ie, without that CRLF.) So it is. On re-reading RFC822 I guess I've always (incorrectly) based my interpretation on the textual description, for example: 3.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION A message consists of header fields and, optionally, a body. The body is simply a sequence of lines containing ASCII charac- ters. It is separated from the headers by a null line (i.e., a line with nothing preceding the CRLF). And: B.2. SEMANTICS Headers occur before the message body and are terminated by a null line (i.e., two contiguous CRLFs). And note the comment in your quote above: ; Everything after ; first null line ; is message body (This comment is repeated later in Appendix D too.) > I'm afrain that Notes is correct on here.... Yes -- a pity the drafters of those RFCs wrote them so ambiguously and I've always preferred words to formulae (diagrams are good though...). Regards, Nick FitzGerald
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Apr 25 2001 - 09:23:35 PDT