OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
Subject: Re: Content-Length (was Re: Banner)
From: Liviu Daia (Liviu.Daiaimar.ro)
Date: Wed Jun 21 2000 - 15:51:50 CDT

On 21 June 2000, Michael Tokarev <mjttls.msk.ru> wrote:
> Wietse Venema wrote: []
> > All this sounds like a good argument for Postfix to strip
> > Content-Length from incoming mail. Does the readership have any
> > problems with that?
> >
> > So we have as proposed changes:
> >
> > - Rewrite {Mail-Followup,Reply,Errors,Return-Receipt}-To: as sender
> > (so that address masquerading works).
>
> This againg pops up the old good "problem" that is rarely encountered
> but still present -- about unqualified names in headers. If mail
> contains, e.g. "Return-Receipt-To: foo", it will be replaced by
> "Return-Receipt-To: foomailserver.dom.ain", and return receipt will
> (this headers still handled by some mailers) be sent to incorrect
> address... :(

    So, where are receipts, error notifications etc. supposed to go when
you have a bare "foo"? Is it legal to have a bare "foo"?

> > - Drop Content-Length:.
>
> That's good. But should it be configurable?

    It should be, who knows what devious scripts depend on it.

    On a second thought, there's also another way to look at it: in
MIME-related legalese, the body of a message is an attachment, and
"Content-Length" is an attribute of that attachment. [*Sigh*] Whoever
invented 7-bit channels and their logical consequence content encoding,
deserves to die a slow, painful death.

> If yes, then we end up on missing general header-rewriting
> mechanism... Woh!..

    What does this have to do with header rewriting?

    Regards,

    Liviu Daia 

-- 
Dr. Liviu Daia               e-mail:   Liviu.Daiaimar.ro
Institute of Mathematics     web page: http://www.imar.ro/~daia
of the Romanian Academy      PGP key:  http://www.imar.ro/~daia/daia.asc