Re: Testing From-Munging

dkg wrote in
 <BM7YT092MMqf5RO5rnoXeFHzAPT3LxvRlwaIiVI9v06Wq0tc23ha8s43n3gqkBmVQPsLat9\
 [email protected]>:
 |heh -- there are multiple forms of From-munging, i guess. This test \
 |wasn't about the "From:" header field (which i think is what you're \
 |talking about). This test was about the "From " in the body of the \
 |message getting prefixed with a ">" character, which it did.
 |
 |It's a relic of the old mbox format, where each message started with \
 |a line with "From ", so the message bodies that had that got a > prepended \
 |to them so that they wouldn't start a new message. This shouldn't really \
 |be happening on modern systems for new messages, though, since there \
 |are much better formats than mbox available today. (and, if you are \

I like it.  Note there is RFC 4155 i think it was.  Note the mail
format is standardized by POSIX (less strict than RFC).
Still it can be reduced to "\n\nFrom ".

 |for some reason obliged to use mbox, there are known reversible ways \
 |to from-munge, so that when messages transit through an mbox they don't \
 |come out modified.)

You normally use MIME.  The other MBOX things (MBOXO, MBOXRD iirc)
are very much unreliable.  And they all change the message
checksum.  But note i had to reintroduce >From for the "do _not_
use content-transfer-encoding" cases on user request.  There are
still people who do not want MIME.  Of course they cannot get
around it when they sign their messages.

 |If you're interested in helping diagnose or fix this on IETF infrastruct\
 |ure, it's probably best to follow up on https://github.com/ietf-tools/ma\
 |ilarch/issues/3487

You normally enforce a content encoding.
Doesn't mailman drive people insane by enforcing base64 encoding?
Some bell rings here.

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)