* In base64 encoding remove all newlines from the encoded result, avoids
getting an invalid result.
* In qp encoding:
- replace all spaces by underlines, not just the first (looks like a
typo in the previous code)
- encode "?"s and "_"s too, as required for this encoding
- remove soft newlines (again, avoid an invalid result)
* Use `regexp-replace*' to encode the parts between the lines. Besides
making the code simpler, it fixes a bug in the previous code where
multiple lines would each get encoded and the results concatenated
without the newlines or any other whitespace.
* When the string to be encoded is longer than 70 characters, split and
encode the sub-parts, then concatenate the encodings with a "\n "
separator. This is done as a poor attempt to follow the line length
limits specified in rfc2047, or more concretely, to avoid sendmail's
"!\n " splitting.
* Use `re:non-ascii' to look for a non-ascii character => faster.
* Use either CR or LF for a newline, not just LF.
* Use `regexp-replace*' to encode the parts between the lines. Besides
making the code simpler, it fixes a bug in the previous code where
multiple lines would each get encoded and the results concatenated
without the newlines or any other whitespace.
There might be existing uses of `net/sendmail' that did this quoting
since this code didn't do so. Such uses would continue to work fine,
since quoted strings would already be plain ASCII, so a second quoting
would leave it as is.
Note that the quoted strings are also used as command line arguments.
It seems that sendmail deals with these all fine when they appear as
command line arguments. This means that any valid email address format
can be used, not just "raw" emails. If there are some sendmails that
don't do this, then it would be better to add a `-t' flag to let
sendmail parse the text in the message.
One caveat (not a new one): since they're passed as is, it is possible
to use two emails in a single string, as in "a@b.com, c@d.com". This
could lead to obvious problems if someone uses "Bar, Foo <foo@bar.org>"
instead of "\"Bar, Foo\" <foo@bar.org>". (Using a `-t' to parse the
content won't help with that...) The only way to avoid this would be to
parse the emails and quote the name part if needed. But that's a much
hairier piece of code.
* Move the `X-Mailer' header to the top, so that the interesting headers
are all together at the bottom (the top gets littered by server
headers anyway).
* Use `subprocess' directly (`process*' wasn't really doing anything
more than that).
* Allow the sender to be `#f', leaving the header out. This makes all
sendmails that I've used use the username that is running the process.
* Just search for a sendmail program: don't barf on windows, so it can
be used in case there is a sendmail.exe executable there.
* Remove `no-mail-recipients' to make it in-line with other racket code
that doesn't raise super-specific exceptions.
* Use port counting instead of doing the counts manually, much simpler
code.
This takes the advice from
http://files.stairways.com/other/ftp-list-specs-info.txt
further: search for the date by an explicit occurrence of a known month
name. This means that we won't see files with bad names (they'd be
filtered out of the result), but the filtered out entries are ones that
would not be usable with `ftp-make-file-seconds'.
When the month is found, and the entry is a file, look for a number
preceding the month, and if found, return it as the file size string.
This is a minor change in the API. (But it's probably better to either
revise it further, or eventually make it irrelevant by exposing the
interesting functionality via `net/url'.)
This function was using 2002 when there's no year... Updated it to use
the last occurrence of the guessed date, as described at
http://files.stairways.com/other/ftp-list-specs-info.txt
This function still looks pretty bogus -- the RFC does *not* say
anything about the format of response to `LIST', so it's whatever
semi-random thing the server does. (The above link looks like an
attempt to fix it, but I didn't see anything more official than that.)
From some looking around, it looks like ftp clients just try a bunch of
patterns against the text. Add also warnings in the documentation about
this.
RFC 2640 specifies that all transport strings are assumed UTF-8 if they
can be parsed as such. To make this complete it should really send a
FEAT and check that the result has "UTF8", but it's kind of redundant
since there's not much else to do if it isn't.
Also, switch to a more correct line endings of CRLF when sending
messages to the server.
