From d5f3d1a041239f89088972e79a4f55e1acd41179 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthias Andree Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:20:51 +0000 Subject: Add list messages, top-level for the nonce. svn path=/branches/BRANCH_6-3/; revision=4960 --- 008523.html | 141 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 141 insertions(+) create mode 100644 008523.html (limited to '008523.html') diff --git a/008523.html b/008523.html new file mode 100644 index 00000000..535ffec5 --- /dev/null +++ b/008523.html @@ -0,0 +1,141 @@ + + + + [fetchmail]fetchmail vs Maillenium; mail truncated to 80K + + + + + + + + + +

[fetchmail]fetchmail vs Maillenium; mail truncated to 80K +

+ jcfoley@comcast.net + + jcfoley@comcast.net +
+ Fri, 23 Apr 2004 02:51:22 +0000 +

+
+ +
You're probably using a Comcast POP3 server.  Many others have
+experienced this problem.  The problem is that the server truncates
+the amount of data returned by the POP3 TOP command.  Comcast changed
+to the Maillennium POP3 server in Summer 2003.  For several months
+they refused to acknowledge any issue at their end that would account
+for email truncation.  Recently the Comcast Government Affairs Manager
+at Comcast of Montgomery (Maryland) sent me the information at the end
+of this message.
+
+I believe the Outlook Express flaw they reference was fixed a few
+years ago.  Regardless it does seem to be a strange and non-conforming
+server implementation that silently does the wrong thing specified by
+the RFC and every other server I've used.
+
+On the other hand, people have made the comment that fetchmail should
+not be relying on TOP because a) that's not what it is for and/or b)
+it is an optional POP3 command.
+
+Item I8 of the fetchmail FAQ which appears to be maintained by Eric
+S. Raymond says, "Don't mistake this for a fetchmail bug."
+
+It would be nice to hear from a fetchmail expert/authority on whether
+fetchmail is doing the right thing by using TOP and for a rationale of
+the FAQ's response.
+
+If fetchmail's use of TOP is legitimate then maybe Comcast would
+uncripple their server if more people complained.
+
+Jim Foley
+
+=======================================================================
+=======================================================================
+
+Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 11:59:17 -0500
+
+Mr. Foley, this email responds to the questions you posed following our
+conference call.
+
+First, Comcast does support POP 3 TOP commands, however Comcast has found
+that increasing the amount of data TOP returns beyond the value of 64K has a
+tendency to crash Microsoft Outlook Express when an abnormally large header
+is sent.  Increasing the value beyond 64K would open the platform to
+malicious use of large headers that adversely impacts system performance.
+Virtually all of Comcast's high-speed Internet customers use Outlook
+Express. Comcast has not received requests from other subscribers who seek
+to use the TOP command in the manner you have requested.  Further, Comcast
+has not received any other complaints regarding email truncation with the
+TOP command.  Should you wish to continue checking your mail through manual
+commands you might try using the RETR command, which will return the entire
+message.
+
+...
+
+
+
+Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:28:11 -0500
+
+Mr. Foley:
+
+This is in response to your question regarding "POP 3 RFC compliance."  We
+have tried to answer your question about Comcast's services by talking about
+the specific application in which you are interested and how that
+application relates to technical information regarding the configuration of
+Comcast's Internet service.  We have provided you all the information that
+we can by explaining that Comcast limits the optional POP 3 Top Command to a
+value of 64k because any larger value has a tendency to crash Microsoft
+Outlook and could leave Comcast's system open to the malicious use of large
+headers intended to impair system performance.
+
+The decision by Comcast to place limitations on the optional POP 3 TOP email
+commands is a technical business decision made by Comcast in the best
+interest of all its customers and its system. ...
+
+...
+
+With respect to the specific RFC at issue, RFC 1939, POP 3, it is our
+understanding that it is a protocol "intended to permit a workstation to
+dynamically access a maildrop on a server host in a useful fashion.
+Usually, this means that the POP3 protocol is used to allow a workstation to
+retrieve mail that the server is holding for it.  Pop 3 is not intended to
+provide extensive manipulation operations of mail on the server."  POP 3 was
+created in May 1996 and has not been revised since, despite the many changes
+in computer hardware and software related to handling of email since that
+time.  In any event, the TOP command is identified as an optional POP 3
+command in RFC 1939.
+
+...
+
+
+
+ +
+

+ -- cgit v1.2.3