Subject: Loan Offer

From: Joseph William <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:57:22 +0200 (SAST)

Loan Offer
Do you need a loan?
Arrangements to Borrow up to $10,000,000.00
Choose between 1 to 25 years repayment period.
Choose between monthly and annual repayment plan
Flexible loan terms and conditions.

All these plans and more on contacting us.
Please apply by sending your email to the
contact below.

Agent Name:  *Joseph William
Agent Email: [email-masked]
Regards
Online Sec
Management.

To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:25249
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Experiment with UTF-8 in message-IDs
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:21:54 GMT
Lines: 70
Sender: [email-masked]

>Hi all,

>In the IETF working group for IMA (Internationalized eMail Address),
>there is a current thread about UTF-8 in message-IDs:
>    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/current/threads.html#04330

>Quick references in the thread:

>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/current/msg04430.html
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/current/msg04344.html
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/current/msg04345.html
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/current/msg04420.html
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/current/msg04422.html

>RFC 5536 (USEFOR) currently allows only ASCII characters in message-IDs.

>INN 2.4 and INN 2.5 have always rejected message-IDs containing
>non-ASCII chars.  (I have not looked at INN 2.3 and before.)  When
>a message-ID is not valid per RFC 850/1036/... and now 5536, the
>article is rejected.

>My question is:  should we try right now to relax the check so as to allow
>UTF-8 in message-IDs?
>If yes, is there something else to enforce?  (NFC normalization?)

It looks like UTF-8 Message-IDs in mail will start to appear. They would
"mostly work" in news it they happened to be encountered (and might well
route around sites that did awkward things with them). So I suggest simply
removing the check in INN would be a good idea - and likewise similar
checks on other headers (but not Date:, I think). It is simply a matter of
"being liberal in what you accept", which is a fine thing to do except
when it is obviously going to lead to breakage.

But I wouldn't do anything about normalization at this stage. That problem
only arises if intermediate sites try to rewrite (or "improve") what they
received, and that would likely do more harm than good.

And, as the EAI standards seem about to become proposed standards, perhaps
it is time to revive the idea of UTF-8 in Newsgroup names. There are some
early Usefor drafts proposing how it should be done, and they DID contain
severe restrictions on allowed characters and strict NFC normalization
(but essentially to be enforced at submission time, and left strictly
alone thereafter).

>Of course, other requirements from RFC 5536 will remain (that is to say
>no comments in the Message-ID: header field, and no ">" or WSP).
>U+00A0 (&nbsp; in HTML) and other spaces encoded in UTF-8 are allowed,
>aren't they?

Even RFC 5332 does not allow comments or WSP ARAIR.

>We plan on releasing INN 2.5.3 soon, so perhaps we can relax the check
>starting from INN 2.5.3.  I will ask in the INN workers mailing-list,
>if naturally there is no complaints in this USEFOR mailing-list against
>going this way.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:27:16 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Julien_=C9LIE?= <[email-masked]>
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Experiment with UTF-8 in message-IDs
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi all,

In the IETF working group for IMA (Internationalized eMail Address),
there is a current thread about UTF-8 in message-IDs:
    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/current/threads.html#04330

Quick references in the thread:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/current/msg04430.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/current/msg04344.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/current/msg04345.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/current/msg04420.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/current/msg04422.html

RFC 5536 (USEFOR) currently allows only ASCII characters in message-IDs.

INN 2.4 and INN 2.5 have always rejected message-IDs containing
non-ASCII chars.  (I have not looked at INN 2.3 and before.)  When
a message-ID is not valid per RFC 850/1036/... and now 5536, the
article is rejected.

200 news.trigofacile.com InterNetNews server INN 2.6.0 (20110908 prerelease) ready (transit mode)
IHAVE <©@fr>
435 Syntax error in message-ID
MODE READER
200 news.trigofacile.com InterNetNews NNRP server INN 2.6.0 (20111003 prerelease) ready (posting ok)
ARTICLE <©@test>
501 Syntax error in message-ID
QUIT
205 Bye!

(Note that 435 is answered to IHAVE for legacy reasons; 501 should be
the real response code per RFC 3977.)

My question is:  should we try right now to relax the check so as to allow
UTF-8 in message-IDs?
If yes, is there something else to enforce?  (NFC normalization?)

Of course, other requirements from RFC 5536 will remain (that is to say
no comments in the Message-ID: header field, and no ">" or WSP).
U+00A0 (&nbsp; in HTML) and other spaces encoded in UTF-8 are allowed,
aren't they?

We plan on releasing INN 2.5.3 soon, so perhaps we can relax the check
starting from INN 2.5.3.  I will ask in the INN workers mailing-list,
if naturally there is no complaints in this USEFOR mailing-list against
going this way.

-- 
Julien �LIE

� I don't know if it's what you want, but it's what you get. �
  (Larry Wall)