Re: New syntax on message-IDs (was Re: AUTH48 is stuck)

In <D95B56C4937447EFBCA2D478A6AE2BF9@Iulius> =?Windows-1252?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?= <[email protected]> writes:

>Hi Charles,

>>> If I understand well the new syntax in USEFOR, the following message-IDs
>>> are invalid:
>>>
>>> <"test"@test>
>>> <te"st@test>
>>> <test@[te\st]>
>>> <test@[te\\st]>
>>>
>>> whereas the following message-ID is valid:
>>>
>>> <test@[te"st]>
>>
>> Correct. And the same is true in RFC 5322 also.

>OK.
>INN is currently only seeing the second one as invalid.  The four other
>are considered to be valid.

I think that is more or less what I would expect, since those four would
be valid under RFC 2822, but not under RFC 5322. I don't think we need to
care whether servers accept the invalid cases. Indeed I am surprised that
INN bothers to test them at all. The normal implementation should just
extract eveything within <...>, and see if it is matched in the history
file.

As for sites that attempt to _generate_ msg-ids, then they certainly
should not be doing it. But the plain fact is that nobody ever generates
msg-ids of those formats (have you ever seen one in the wild?). So there
is really no problem.

>CHECK <"test"@test>

CHECK is not a standard NNTP command BTW.

>Is it OK for news servers to switch to the new USEFOR syntax right
>now?  or would it cause problems?

>We can use that new syntax, starting with INN 2.5.2.

Yes, because in practice the awkward cases will never arise.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email protected]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5