small bug in INN response of article command.
rra at stanford.edu
Mon Jan 22 04:31:47 UTC 2001
I'm moving this to inn-workers, as this is actually pretty interesting.
I'm sorry it took so long for me to investigate this report.
Cor Bosman <cor at xs4all.net> writes:
> Hi INN-bugs, while debugging a problem between a Netscape client and
> Diablo 2.3, I stumbled upon a problem in INN. At least in INN 2.2, I
> didn't check later version. It can be easily shown:
> (xs4 ~ 56) telnet news1 119
> Trying 188.8.131.52...
> Connected to news1.xs4all.nl.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> 200 news1.xs4all.nl InterNetNews NNRP server INN 2.2 21-Jan-1999+jp.1 ready (posting ok).
> group xs4all.general
> 211 499 96909 97422 xs4all.general
> article 97422
> 220 97422 <kqk9us8tr77h858ntinrnm6k3aflvf757m at 4ax.com> article
> And now trying again..but based on message-id
> article <kqk9us8tr77h858ntinrnm6k3aflvf757m at 4ax.com>
> 220 0 article <kqk9us8tr77h858ntinrnm6k3aflvf757m at 4ax.com>
> As you can see, the response code of the second one is wrong. It should
> 220 0 <kqk9us8tr77h858ntinrnm6k3aflvf757m at 4ax.com> article
Yup, that's entirely correct. In RFC 977, we have:
220 n <a> article retrieved - head and body follow
(n = article number, <a> = message-id)
221 n <a> article retrieved - head follows
222 n <a> article retrieved - body follows
223 n <a> article retrieved - request text separately
In every case, it should be the group number, the message ID, and then any
> Unfortunately, It seems Netscape has adopted this bug as the truth, and
> now doesnt parse a correct response from Diablo correctly :)
> I'll warn you. if you fix this, you will get problems with Netscape
> clients. I have reproduced the fact that Netscape will get very
> confused in some cases and cant distinguish between header and body
And that's not surprising, as this is a bug of *extremely* long-standing.
I just checked, and the same bug is in INN 1.0.
Do you know what the Diablo folks did about this? Has Netscape since been
fixed, so that the right thing for us to do is just fix this bug, or did
they end up having to generate the arguments in the wrong order too?
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the inn-workers