DNSBL -Bset:URL mode

Kostik koc@fax.ru
Wed Jan 26 10:34:44 UTC 2011


Hello!

Vernon Schryver wrote:
>> Looks like a sign of the beginning of a query string missing:
>> news.cxxxxx.comid=xxxxxx -> news.cxxxxx.com?id=xxxxxx
>> (but I do not know whether it was in the raw message)
> 
> I don't see anything that should be done for news.cxxxxx.comid=xxxxxx
> There is no way to know that "comid" should have been "com?id"
> instead of new TLD comid

There are many such URLs in my e-mail traffic. It seems that this is a
problem with URL parsing. I will try to catch a raw message for better bug
reporting.

> Do any popular mail user agents treat the strings
> "http://xxx.example.com;" "http://xxx.example.com," or
> "http://xxx.example.com)" as "<http://xxx.example.com>;" etc?

I did several tests on: thunderbird, kmail and microsoft outlook
Examples from my real e-mail traffic:
---
1.
http://xxx.example.com)
http://xxx.example.com),
http://xxx.example.com:
http://xxx.example.com]
http://xxx.example.com]:
- thunderbird and outlook consider it as a valid http://xxx.example.com/
but not kmail

2.
http://xxx.example.com,
- all of my mail agents consider it as a valid http://xxx.example.com/

3.
http://xxx.example.com\240
http://xxx.example.com\cell
- outlook convert it into valid:
http://xxx.example.com/240 and http://xxx.example.com/cell but not
thunderbird and kmail

4.
http://xxx.example.com%c2%a0
http://xxx.example.com%2f
http://xxx.example.com%2f)
- no one
---

=kostik



More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact vjs@rhyolite.com by mail or use the form.