Mail-dir hanging & needed telnet to delete bad entry.

I've got an original name and an alias for my ISP's pop server.
Ie. 2 different email addresses at the same domain.

I normally use an uncommon download/reader: ETH-Oberon...
First I download the directory,
Then I select entries from the directory to download.
I can delete individual or 'from here to the last' entries.

Recently my ISP was hanging during directory-fetch of one
of my 'names'; which I could see from watching [on repeated
attempts] the modem leds.

Because my ISP requires Tx-authenticate recently, I've
investigated using telnet to manipulate the mailserver.
And it also hangs for telnet, so the problem doesn't seem
to be on my side ?

I've left about 40 mails on the problem directory; and
using telnet's "stat, top 11, dele ,
I was able to determine that approx. the 75'th mail,
was the problem. I started by reading the headers and
first few lines via telneting "top"; and then deleting from
the highest-numbered mails.

It's a bit tricky since the higher number mails 'fall down'
to fill the hole, but only AFTER log-off.
Apparently 'top 11' caused a hang.
But a mail, which I think was adjacent to the culprit,
was seen by 'top 11' to have a very long header field
full of non-ascii chars.

Q- is this a common fault ?

Q - How would M$-outsp00k users handle it ?

Q - can M$-outsp00k fetch just the directory first,
and next time online, select just particular mails,
and selectively delete others ?

I think that my ISP required me to have Tx-authenticate only
because I wasn't using a familiar reader, because when I look
at mail-headers, none of them are Tx-authenticated except
ones which I've sent. People tell me that Tx-authenticate
is a common requirement.

Q - why don't I see the Tx-authentication field filled in
on mails which I receive from other posters ?

Thanks for any input,

== Chris Glur.

Re: Mail-dir hanging & needed telnet to delete bad entry.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 02:53:53 -0800, wrote:
[sNip]
> It's a bit tricky since the higher number mails 'fall down'
> to fill the hole, but only AFTER log-off.
> Apparently 'top 11' caused a hang.
> But a mail, which I think was adjacent to the culprit,
> was seen by 'top 11' to have a very long header field
> full of non-ascii chars.
>
> Q- is this a common fault ?

If the server software isn't handling this properly, then it needs to b=
e =

fixed, but it's more likely your eMail client software that has the =

problem.

Although messages with header lines that exceed 998 characters (not =

including the CRLF line-termination characters), software still needs to=
=

be designed to handle such corruption in some way that doesn't leave the=
=

user with an unresponsive system (e.g., the best option is to download t=
he =

message anyway, and then place it in a special folder for corrupt messag=
es =

so the user can decide how to handle it later).

> Q - How would M$-outsp00k users handle it ?

I have no idea how the users of a particular application would handle a=
ny =

given scenario.

> Q - can M$-outsp00k fetch just the directory first,
> and next time online, select just particular mails,
> and selectively delete others ?

I assume you're using POP3 to download the messages, in which case =

selective mail downloads are possible with some eMail client software =

(such as Pegasus Mail by David Harris). I have no idea if Microsoft's =

OutLook even has this feature.

As far as "fetching a directory," POP3 doesn't work in these terms. It=
=

can obtain a list of messages available during the current session, and =
=

then download at that time.

> I think that my ISP required me to have Tx-authenticate only
> because I wasn't using a familiar reader, because when I look
> at mail-headers, none of them are Tx-authenticated except
> ones which I've sent. People tell me that Tx-authenticate
> is a common requirement.

Are you referring to "SMTP Authentication?" If so, then people are rig=
ht =

in that SMTP Authentication is a common requirement because it is often =
=

used to stop spammers from committing "relay rape" which means they use =
=

the server to send their spam to countless victims.

> Q - why don't I see the Tx-authentication field filled in
> on mails which I receive from other posters ?

Because "SMTP Authentication" (assuming this is what you're referring t=
o) =

is merely providing a username and password to the SMTP server when =

sending the eMail message. You might see some hints (unlikely) about th=
is =

with the "Received:" SMTP headers in the messages you send (this depends=
=

on how your mail server is configured), but you normally won't see this =
=

with inbound messages.

> Thanks for any input,
>
> == Chris Glur.

-- =

Randolf Richardson - kingpin+nntp@lumbercartel.ca
The Lumber Cartel, local 42 (Canadian branch)
http://www.lumbercartel.ca/