Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: =20



There is "receiving mail software" along the message route that can
affect the final result seen by receiver B. If your mail software let's
you see full headers, you can trace the message's route. For example,
the path of your message from your computer to my computer by way of
Phys-L was as follows (read from the bottom up):

Delivered-To: exit60@chrlmi.cablespeed.com
Received: (qmail 28673 invoked by uid 0); 25 Jul 2003 14:44:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.cablespeed.com) (24.35.0.35) by 0
with SMTP; 25 Jul 2003 14:44:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 21127 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2003 14:44:44 -0000
Delivered-To: exit60@CABLESPEED.COM
Received: (qmail 21123 invoked by uid 0); 25 Jul 2003 14:44:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailgate1.nau.edu) (134.114.96.58) by 0
with SMTP; 25 Jul 2003 14:44:44 -0000
Received: from mailgate1 (mailgate1.nau.edu [134.114.96.58]) by
mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.2 #30563) with SMTP id
<0HIL00KP33CWQ1@mailgate1.nau.edu> for exit60@CABLESPEED.COM; Fri, 25
Jul 2003 07:44:43 -0700 (MST)
Received: from LISTS.NAU.EDU by LISTS.NAU.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 4037756 for PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU; Fri, 25 Jul 2003
07:44:38 -0700
Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.mailgate1.nau.edu by mailgate1.nau.edu
(PMDF V6.2 #30563) id <0HIL00D014YE11@mailgate1.nau.edu> for
phys-l@lists-internal.nau.edu (ORCPT PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu); Fri, 25 Jul
2003 07:44:38 -0700 (MST)
Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.mailgate1.nau.edu by mailgate1.nau.edu
(PMDF V6.2 #30563) id <0HIL00D014YC0J@mailgate1.nau.edu> for
PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 07:44:37 -0700 (MST)
Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net (barry.mail.mindspring.net
[207.69.200.25]) by mailgate1.nau.edu (PMDF V6.2 #30563) with ESMTP id
<0HIL007E94YCRR@mailgate1.nau.edu> for PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu; Fri, 25 Jul
2003 07:44:36 -0700 (MST)
Received: from user-11fae1q.dsl.mindspring.com ([66.245.56.58]
helo=[10.0.1.5]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 19g3oC-00034U-00 for PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:44:36
-0400
From: Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM>

Your message was repeatedly processed by mailserver Mail Transfer Agents
(Exim, PMDF, and qmail), NAU's conversion daemon and directory daemon,
the Phys-L listserver, and the mail client software on my computer. The
integrity of the message I received depends on the capabilities of *all*
that software. I don't understand all the details, but I'm beginning to
believe that the likeliest problem along the route is the MTA at the
receiver's ISP, i.e. the software at one's mailserver that receives the
message from the Net and delivers it to your computer.

I *never* receive unencoded "=" and "=20" characters, and I receive
Base64 MIME-encoded messages (like the one today from Hasan Fakhruddin)
with no problems. I ascribe my good fortune to the excellent "qmail"
MTA software running on the Unix boxes at my Internet service provider,
and the ancient but rugged Netscape 4 mail client running on my
computer. Millennium Digital Media, the parent of my ISP
Cablespeed.Com, believes in staying up-to-date technologically.

Best wishes,

Larry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Larry Cartwright Retired Physics Teacher
<exit60@cablespeed.com> Charlotte MI 48813 USA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hugh Haskell wrote:

At 10:17 -0400 7/25/03, Larry Cartwright wrote:

Short answer: This problem is caused by a mismatch of the MIME
(Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) capabilities of the sender's
mail software and the receiving mail software.

But if that were the only reason, why would a message sent from my
computer to the list come back to me with the =20 type garbage
messing it up, when it wasn't there in the first place, and even more
strange why would a message from sender A arrive at receiver B's
computer messed up on Monday, but another message from A to B arrive
just fine on Tuesday? If A's messages always arrived at B's computer
messed up, but C's always didn't, then your explanation would make
sense. But, while your explanation probably is at least partly true,
how does it account for the time variations?

Hugh