Re: [SLUG] Comsec behaving badly, how to talk to a big business

[Jamie Wilkinson <jaq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This one time, at band camp, Jeremy Portzer wrote:
> Amos Shapira wrote:
>> On 07/10/2007, Alex Samad <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 01:09:50AM +0000, Amos Shapira wrote:
>>> DATA: malformed address: <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxx>\n may not follow
>>> alex@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> : failing address in "To:" header is: alex@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
>>> <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> It might be the @
>> Yes it might be, I now see that it isn't included in the definition of
>> "atext" (under 3.2.4 "Atom" in 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822#page-12).
>> Maybe they should put this text in a comment ("()").
>> Also the "\n" looks a bit suspicious - maybe there is a missing "\r" there
>> somewhere?
>
> \n just means "newline" - which can either be CRLF (usual format for 
> Internet communications; Windows/DOS format) or LF-only (Unix text files), 
> or even CR-only (old Macintosh).
>
> Common confusion/misconception is that \n refers to LF only.  This is not 
> always the case-usually it refers to the portable "newline" that gets 
> expanded to the proper characters depending on platform or context.

Over the wire, it is just newline, no carriage return.  The \r component of
the CRLF bog is only a problem when you're doing file IO.  For a wire
protocol it's the \n that counts.