On 4 Jul 1996, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> BR> Wait a minute. Since the general specification for setting headers (I'm
> BR> talking in perl or otherwise, not specifically majordomo) is to set the
> BR> headers, then issue a blank line (\n\n) between the headers and the
> BR> message. Why not have majordomo follow the same specification?
>
> It's not documented to work that way. Or is it? Hmmm, there doesn't seem
> to be too much documentation on this, which means we're pretty free to mess
> with it. That's probably better than what I was thinking; I thought we had
> to allow the blank line between Approved: and the rest of the headers. If
> we don't then we're set.
Depends on the method. In method #1 we have to allow a blank line between
the original headers (which include Approved:) and the new headers. I
think this blank line would be because the new headers would be listed in
the body text and as such the mailer would insert a blank line (Although I
could be wrong).
In method #2 and #3 we also have to allow a line difference between the
original headers and the Approved: and new headers (for #2). Again, this
would be because of the way the mailer sends stuff.
In #2 we should DEFINETLY not allow for a user entered blank line.
Thus, the bottom line is that in #2 and #3 majordomo would parse the
message for an Approved: header within two lines of the original header
(one blank mailer inserted line and then the Approved: header) and the
continue as we've decided. In #1 it would be the same thing, but it would
parse for the manual headers as opposed to a manual Approved: header (as
that would already be in the real headers)
> BR> I think allowing for two different types of headers for approval gets
> BR> very tricky, complicated and confusing. Especially when one becomes
> BR> disallowed for one type of approval and another for another.
>
> I do too. If we can use the blank line to signal the start of body or
> headers and body, we're set.
Well, since nobody has raised any problems with this, it seems
that this should be the way we go, barring any technical problems.
> BR> I also agree with the proposal of ignoring #4 and #5 and allowing 1, 2
> BR> and 3. I disagree with Approved-Body: and think we should use the blank
> BR> line method to distinguish between headers and message body.
>
> I think we're in agreement now.
(see above)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Brock Rozen | brozen@netvoyage.net | http://www.netvoyage.net/~brozen |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
|
|
