Bug 676824 - sendmail's man page is incomplete/misleading about -i option
Summary: sendmail's man page is incomplete/misleading about -i option
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: sendmail
Version: 13
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
low
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jaroslav Škarvada
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-02-11 12:25 UTC by Mitchell Berger
Modified: 2011-06-27 12:15 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-06-27 12:15:49 UTC
Type: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Proposed patch (637 bytes, patch)
2011-03-03 10:51 UTC, Jaroslav Škarvada
no flags Details | Diff

Description Mitchell Berger 2011-02-11 12:25:06 UTC
Description of problem:

The sendmail man page describes the -i option as follows:

"-i     Ignore dots alone on lines by themselves in incoming
messages.  This should be set if you are reading data from a file."

In reality, sendmail ordinarily performs the "dot-stuffing"
behavior described in Section 4.5.2 of RFC2821 when it reads
a message on standard input.  That is, it usually removes
a leading period on a line (irrespective of whether the line
has additional characters).  When given the -i option, it does
not strip leading periods.  Part of the result is that -i
causes it to "ignore dots alone on lines by themselves in incoming
messages," but this flag also affects sendmail's behavior on all
lines that begin with dots, even when they are not alone on a
line by themselves.

The behavior here differs from other common MTAs.  For example,
postfix's sendmail command documents the -i option very similarly,
but since it does not ordinarily carry out the dot-stuffing behavior
when invoked from the commandline (only when accepting a message
via SMTP), the description of -i in the manpage is accurate for
postfix.

Sendmail's man page should be updated to accurately describe the
effect of the -i option.  Upstream doesn't seem to have a publicly
accessible bug tracker, so I was hoping you could pursue the
issue with them as it exists in the upstream source.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

8.14.4-4.fc13
(and presumably all other current version-releases)


How reproducible:

100%


Steps to Reproduce:

1.  Create a text file /tmp/testmail.txt with the following contents:

==============================================
From: Your Name <youraddress>
To: Your Name <youraddress>
Subject: Sendmail dot test

This is a test
.. This line has two dots
... This line has three dots
This is the end of the test
==============================================

2.  cat /tmp/testmail.txt | /usr/sbin/sendmail -t -f youraddress

3.  cat /tmp/testmail.txt | /usr/sbin/sendmail -i -t -f youraddress


Actual results:

The mail received from step 2 above has one dot on the line that
had two dots in the text file and two dots on the line that had
three dots in the text file.

The mail received from step 3 above looks exactly like the text
file.


Expected results:

With most MTAs, you would expect both received messages to look
the same as the text file.  However, given what sendmail does with
the message when invoked as in step 2, according to the man page's
description of the -i flag, the message received when it is invoked
as in step 3 should look the same as the one from step 2 (it should
have one dot removed from each line) because the -i documentation
incorrectly claims that it only affects lines that contain dots
alone by themselves.

The man page should be updated to correctly describe the behavior,
perhaps along the lines of

"-i  Do not strip a leading dot from lines in incoming messages, and
do not treat a dot on a line by itself as the end of an incoming
message.  This should be set if you are reading data from a file"

Comment 1 Jaroslav Škarvada 2011-02-21 14:27:54 UTC
Thanks, makes sense to me, forwarded upstream.

Comment 2 Jaroslav Škarvada 2011-03-03 10:51:00 UTC
Created attachment 482040 [details]
Proposed patch

Comment 3 Jaroslav Škarvada 2011-03-03 10:54:25 UTC
I recognize this to be a very minor issue - I will fix it in rawhide and back-port later to F13 in case there would be an F13 update. If you do not insist of fixing this in F13, it is possible to close this as CLOSED RAWHIDE.

Comment 4 Mitchell Berger 2011-03-03 19:02:14 UTC
I agree that it's not urgent to push out a custom patch
to all Fedora releases, and for the moment having it in
Rawhide is fine.  What I'm most interested in is getting
upstream to accept the revision so that eventually the
documentation will be correct in all distributions.  Have
you heard back from them at all?

Comment 5 Jaroslav Škarvada 2011-03-04 14:18:14 UTC
I would give it a little more time, I have not received confirmation of patch acceptance so far.

Comment 6 Jaroslav Škarvada 2011-03-08 07:57:26 UTC
Reply from upstream:

> This has been updated in our cvs repository.
> Thanks.

Comment 7 Mitchell Berger 2011-03-08 08:05:49 UTC
Awesome - thank you very much for pursuing this!

Comment 8 Bug Zapper 2011-05-30 11:25:40 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 13 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 13.  It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.  At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '13'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 13's end of life.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 13 is end of life.  If you 
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it 
against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this 
bug to the applicable version.  If you are unable to change the version, 
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events.  Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 9 Bug Zapper 2011-06-27 12:15:49 UTC
Fedora 13 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2011-06-25. Fedora 13 is 
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further 
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of 
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.