Bugs item #1471318, was opened at 2006-04-16 11:22 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bwarsaw You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1471318&group_id=103 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: mail delivery Group: 2.1 (stable) Status: Closed Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Submitted By: Harri Porten (hporten) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Missing Date header in "requires approval" attachment Initial Comment: The message attachment part of the "xxx post from xxx@xxx.xx requires approval" mails sent to the list admin are lacking a Date header. The part currently starts with Content-Type: message/rfc822 MIME-Version: 1.0 while RFC822 mandates a Dates header to exist. This is with version 2.1.5 compiled with sources on a Debian 3.1 system. I've seen that the lack of the header has been fixed for other types of mails but not the attachment of this admin mail. Harri. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Barry A. Warsaw (bwarsaw) Date: 2006-04-18 13:05

Message: Logged In: YES user_id=12800 Can you tell us what the "mail storage software" actually is? It would be nice to know for the future. It doesn't seem especially "liberal in what you accept and strict in what you produce". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Harri Porten (hporten) Date: 2006-04-18 12:21 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=873548 FYI, the error message I'm getting from our mail storage software (I perhaps shouldn't have called it MTA previously): "The appended message was received, but could not be stored in the mail database on imap.example.com. The error detected was: In message/rfc822 part: 0 Date fields seen. At least 1 must be present." The server wants to store incoming mails in a database for later retrieval. As the part is marked as rfc822 it applies the corresponding rules. Whether a MUA would later add a Date header later is not relevant in this case. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Barry A. Warsaw (bwarsaw) Date: 2006-04-18 08:41 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=12800 Which you've done, so that's good enough for me! Thanks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro) Date: 2006-04-18 01:27 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1123998 I agree that it is mostly harmless either way, but I think it is correct to include it. The attachment is a message/rfc822 part and while it never passed through a mail system as an individual message, it was actually sent as part of an enclosing message at the time in the header. Presumably, the recipient list admin will open the attached message in an MUA and reply to it. When opened, it will look like a message that was sent at the time in the Date header we insert which is actually when it was crafted and sent, and a functional MUA will insert the current time of the reply in the Date header of the reply, just as it would when replying to any other message. I'm not sure what is complaining or what the exact complaint is in Harri's case, so I don't know what the resultant Date in his reply will be. I do agree, that if the list admin is (manually) extracting the confirmation message from the notice and posting it directly to an MTA, it would probably be better if we hadn't put the Date in it, but it seems to be a situation where we can't be 100% right whatever we do, and both RFC822 and RFC2822 say a compliant message is required to have a Date, so I lean towards putting it in. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Barry A. Warsaw (bwarsaw) Date: 2006-04-18 00:06 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=12800 I'm not sure I agree that the confirm attachment should have a Date header. It's mostly harmless, so I won't argue too much, but the Date header is supposed to reflect the time that the originator injects the message into the system. The creation of the attachment by Mailman is not the time at which the confirm message is injected into the system. That would be when the recipient of the confirmation uses that attachment to generate their confirmation. The header should reflect the Date of that use, which can be significantly removed in time from when the attachment was generated. I think any MUA that doesn't include it's own Date header in a reply to the attachment, and sends that to an MTA that requires a Date header is broken. But as I say, I think it's probably harmless to add it anyway, so if you want to leave it, I won't complain. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro) Date: 2006-04-17 18:02 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1123998 Patch committed to subversion trunk. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro) Date: 2006-04-17 17:37 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1123998 You are correct. The attached, Mailman generated "confirm" message lacks a Date: header. This is wrong. The attached patch against the 2.1.8 base should fix the problem. It will be incorporated in the next release. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Harri Porten (hporten) Date: 2006-04-17 15:06 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=873548 Sorry. I just realized that I quoted the wrong set of headers in my report. My MTA is apparantly complaining about the lack of the Date header in the *last* part as generated by Mailman: --===============0382486014== Content-Type: message/rfc822 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: confirm eb636a7c7c9eff5aa0db306a3a2666d5baf486b0 Sender: test-request@example.com From: test-request@example.com If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact, Mailman will discard the held message. Do this if the message is spam. If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting to the list. The Approved: header can also appear in the first line of the body of the reply. --===============0382486014==-- Or does your answer apply to this part as well? I see that RFC 1521 does indeed relax the 822 restrictions. Not sure about the Date requirement, though. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Mark Sapiro (msapiro) Date: 2006-04-16 11:50 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1123998 RFC822 and RFC2822 only address the top level message headers. The standard for the headers of sub-parts in multipart messages is RFC1521. A Date header is not required in the headers of a sub-part. If your issue is that the attached message/rfc822 part itself contains no date header, this is an exact copy of the message received by Mailman. It was up to whatever sent the original message to include a Date: header. If mailman receives a non-compliant message and holds it for approval, it is not up to Mailman to try to correct defects in the received message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100103&aid=1471318&group_id=103