[20447] in bugtraq
Re: SECURITY.NNOV: The Bat! bug
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rich Lafferty)
Thu Apr 26 01:42:16 2001
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <20010425130133.A28085@alcor.concordia.ca>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:01:34 -0400
Reply-To: Rich Lafferty <rich@ALCOR.CONCORDIA.CA>
From: Rich Lafferty <rich@ALCOR.CONCORDIA.CA>
To: BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS.COM
In-Reply-To: <200104250944.VAA27681@fep3-orange.clear.net.nz>; from
nick@virus-l.demon.co.uk on Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:42:34PM +1300
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:42:34PM +1300, Nick FitzGerald (nick@virus-l.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> hurtta+z3@leija.mh.fmi.fi wrote:
> >
> > Well,
> >
> > Actually message standards (or RFC 822 actually) doe snot requile that blank line,
> > if message do not have body.
> >
> > Note that grammar is:
> >
> > message = fields *( CRLF *text ) ; Everything after
> > ; first null line
> > ; is message body
> > Therefore
> >
> > message = fields
> >
> > is also valid (ie, without that CRLF.)
>
> So it is.
>
> On re-reading RFC822 I guess I've always (incorrectly) based my
> interpretation on the textual description, for example:
[snip excerpt]
> Yes -- a pity the drafters of those RFCs wrote them so ambiguously
> and I've always preferred words to formulae (diagrams are good
> though...).
Yeah, someone should get around to writing replacements.
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2821.txt
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2822.txt
:-)
(I don't use The Bat, and I haven't been following this thread
closely, so I don't know if the updated RFCs actually clarify the
issue at hand, but they do clarify a lot of stuff that 821 and 822
were a little liberal on.)
-Rich
--
------------------------------ Rich Lafferty ---------------------------
Sysadmin/Programmer, Instructional and Information Technology Services
Concordia University, Montreal, QC (514) 848-7625
------------------------- rich@alcor.concordia.ca ----------------------
