Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Workers
(July 1996)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: 1.94 resend needs fixing...
From: Chan Wilson <cwilson @ slurp . neu . sgi . com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 18:22:41 +0200
To: Project Genesis <genesis @ j51 . com>
Cc: majordomo-workers @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 04 Jun 1996 16:00:08 EDT."

> If the moderator adds an Approved: and From: header, the message goes out
> with TWO From: headers - the original writer, and also the moderator who
> approved the message. Mail readers deal with two From: headers in many
> diverse ways - depending on the mail reader, some people receive the message
> from the moderator, some from the writer, some from both.

Okay, I've figured out where this problem lies, but don't have time to
fix it correctly right now.  Someone care to take a whack?

Basically, allowing an approval format like:

	From: me@here.com
	To: thislist
	Subject: thang
	----
	Approved: cthulhuisgod
	
	blah blah blah

breaks approvals of this form:

	From: list-moderator
	To: thislist
	Subject: Re: approval required
	----
	Approved: cthluhuthinksyouareasandwich

	From: me@here.com
	To: thislist
	Subject: thang
	----
	
	blah blah blah

and the reason that the 'approve' program works is because it sends a
message out directly via sendmail, like so:

		% /usr/lib/sendmail guest
	Approved: test.pass
	Received: by slurp.neu.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/911001.SGI)
	        for test id RAA24569; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 17:08:09 +0200
	Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 17:08:09 +0200
	From: guest (Guest Account)
	Message-Id: <199607031508.RAA24569@slurp.neu.sgi.com>
	To: test
	
	Wed Jul  3 17:08:09 MDT 1996


The easiest fix is to disallow the first form of approval -- if an
approval line is found in the body of the message, what follows is the
header of the message to be approved.  This was broke under 1.93
anyway -- how much do people care?  

Along with this fix, I'd like to eliminate the parse_header call in
resend and use the ParseMailHeader routine that's in majordomo.pl --
it seems much cleaner.  Had I known about it when I rewrote resend, I
would have used it.

I won't be able to pay attention to majordomo for at least 10 days due
to work related travel.  Since several folks are hung up on this bug,
perhaps someone can step up to the plate?

Thanks.

--Chan


Follow-Ups:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Problem with "From:" field
From: Chan Wilson <cwilson@slurp.neu.sgi.com>
Next: Re: majordomo speed
From: Brent@GreatCircle.COM (Brent Chapman)
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Problem with "From:" field
From: Chan Wilson <cwilson@slurp.neu.sgi.com>
Next: Re: 1.94 resend needs fixing...
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com