Re: [Proposal/Patch 0/3] Using GIO for POP3

[Peter Bloomfield <PeterBloomfield bellsouth net>]

Hi Albrecht,

On 04/05/2017 01:29:16 PM Wed, Albrecht Dreß wrote:
> Hi Peter:
>
> Am 04.04.17 22:32 schrieb(en) Peter Bloomfield:
> > > Oh, that is strange - actually, it should show the real counts here (i.e "..exceeds the maximum allowed length 
> > > 998").
> >
> > Yes, it was actually "reply length 1153 exceeds the maximum allowed length 998"
>
> Ouch.  So someone is just violating the standard...
>
> > > Anyway, a fix would be easy...
> >
> > RFC 5322 also says that "Receiving implementations would do well to handle an arbitrarily large number of characters in a 
> > line for robustness sake." To be "liberal in what [we] accept from others", I feel that we should not treat an 
> > overlong line as a failure.
>
> I see - I should read the standards *completely*... :-/
>
> Attached is a simple patch, on top of the original package, which removes the line length limit for POP3.  It 
> also removes the respective tests from the unit test application.
>
> > I ran an older Balsa to download and delete that message from the server, and it rendered just fine--I can 
> > send you a copy, but of course the long line(s) might get cropped along the way!
>
> As you are right that we should be liberal in accepting somewhat broken data, I don't think it's necessary... 
>  Probably some broken spam, not worth the time to investigate it!

Thanks for the patch! I'm using it, and I expect it to handle the next violating mail, but I don't expect to 
get one for a week or so.

Would it be simpler to define MAX_POP_LINE_LEN as G_MAXSIZE? Or to keep the NetClientPrivate struct opaque, 
perhaps NetClient could export NET_CLIENT_MAX_LINE_LEN, and define MAX_POP_LINE_LEN as 
NET_CLIENT_MAX_LINE_LEN?

Best,

Peter