Re: Off Topic: Mailing Agents?
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 01:00:45PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >The reason? My incoming mail goes through an MS-Exchange server,
> >and it strips out the signature part and makes a mess of the mail
> >header. There's no
> >
> >* ^X-Mailing-List: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
> >or
> >* ^From debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> >
> >left to filter on.
> >
> >MS-Exchange sucks.
What I've seen it do is this: you send a multipart/signed mime message
through an exchange server, and it will munch up half the message headers,
all the mime headers, the signature part and inline the signed text part,
with a new mime declaration, introducing windows codepage 1251.
I could never figure out what went wrong, because when I sent the exchange
competence center people an smtp + pop3 dump illustrating the mangling,
they were completely baffled about the possibility of sending email with
telnet, so I gave up.
> Only MUA I tolerate with MS-Sexchange is telnet blah 110... retr and
> linux's terminal paging is perfect for me :)
Umm, actually it doesn't or didn't. Fetchmail had to be patched to allow
incorrect pop3 "list" responses from a certain vendor's mail server,
because it reported not the actual message size, but the size of the
compressed entry in the mail database. It is also explained in the
fetchmail FAQ.
When the company where this happened, tried to get some of the support
they were paying (very big time) for, there was no answer. So two bsd
gurus who were affected by this debugged it a bit and even found the likely
cause of the problem sent a patch to the fetchmail bazaar.
Shortly after the patched version of fetchmail hit the net, the submitters
of the patch were contacted by an exchange developer. After some pounding
with rfc's, he agreed that it was a bug and gave a magic registry hack to
fix exchange, ie. one has to add a key called "pop3 compatibility" to be
compliant with the rfc's.
Since knowing about this, it has never been a doubt to me that open source
has better support than closed source, even if that's what you're actually
using.
Cheers,
Joost
Reply to: