Subject: Consistent core dump from Pine 3.07 when dealing with MIME from PMDF

From: James Dryfoos- Postmaster <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 13:36:49 -0500 (EST)

I have a problem where a MIME mesage from PMDF 4.2 sent to a PINE 3.07 mailer
causes PINE to core dump if I try to forward or reply to the message.  This
also happens to Pine 3.05.  I cannot forward you the message (problem above)
so will cut and paste what is on my screen.

Here is what I see when I read the message via PINE (I have removed message
text):

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

       PINE 3.07         VIEW MAIL         Folder:inbox  Message 32 of 34 42%

Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 09:25:35 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: What is all of this about? I did not send out a messsage.
Parts/attachments:
   1   Shown  3.3 Kb     Message
   1.1 Shown   82 lines  Text
----------------------------------------

----- Part 1 "Included Message" -----

(Message text removed.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

--Boundary (ID qNw9tcUxHmAXTlJCfTBhow)
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

(message body removed)

--Boundary (ID qNw9tcUxHmAXTlJCfTBhow)
Content-type: MESSAGE/SAMPLE

(Message body removed)

--Boundary (ID qNw9tcUxHmAXTlJCfTBhow)--

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is when it dies.  I have attempted to forward the message and I say
non-mime when prompted by PINE as to whether or not to forward it as a MIME
message (maybe this is the problem?).  I just tried saying forward as a MIME
message and it works.

To      : [email-masked]
Cc      :
Attchmnt: 1. [Message] (3.3Kb) ""
Subject : What is all of this about? I did not send out a messsage. (fwd)
----- Message Text -----
Test new pine

   =======================================================================
      James D. Dryfoos                  |  [email-masked]
      Duke University Medical Center    |  [email-masked]
      2200 West Main Street             |
      Suite 450 Room 36A                |  (919) 286-6391 - office
      Durham, NC 27710 Earth            |  (919) 286-6369 - fax
   =======================================================================

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 09:25:35 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: What is all of this about? I did not send out a messsage.

                                           [Sending mail.....]Segmentation
fault (core dumped)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So is the problem me saying do not forward as a MIME message?  Or should Pine
handle it anyway?  I do not think that PMDF is causing this, it just
happens to be the mailer the message was sent from.

-- Jim

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 11:37:54 -0700 (PDT)

This is a bug in Pine, but the information you've provided is inadequate to
fix the problem.  I will need the actual message to reproduce the problem.

We were aware of a bug in 3.05 that caused this behavior, but we thought we
fixed it in 3.07.

Please make the message available to me and I will fix the problem.

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 12:01:06 -0700 (PDT)

> Here is what I see when I read the message via PINE (I have removed message

Please do not post Pine problems to the info-pmdf list. Pine has nothing to do
with PMDF, and regardless of what message it gets from whatever source, should
never have occasion to core dump.

				Ned

---

From: Ed Greshko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 10:09:47 +0800 (TST)

> never have occasion to core dump.

	I've seen people get touchy about the code they write...but this one
takes the cake.  

	James mentions at the end of his first message that:

"I do not think that PMDF is causing this, it just happens to be the mailer
the message was sent from."

	The guy just wanted to cover all bases and fully describe the problem.
Also, even if it isn't a PMDF problem (heaven forbid!) maybe someone in that
group would/could have offered assistance.

	Up until James talked about PMDF I didn't know it existed.  When
I first saw his message I thought about taking a look to see what kind of
package it is.  But, considering the 'my product can't be at fault' attitude
I seem to be detecting....I'm not so sure it is worth it.  I'd rather stick
with pine and its authors who are humble and gracious.

Edward M. Greshko			Control Data Taiwan
Voice: +886-2-715-2222 x287		6/F, 131 Nanking East Road, Section 3
FAX  : +886-2-712-9197			Taipei, Taiwan R.O.C

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 21:34:09 -0700 (PDT)

> 	I've seen people get touchy about the code they write...but this one

Your assumption here is incorrect -- I neither said nor implied anything
whatsoever about either my code or anyone else's. Please reread my original
posting if this isn't clear.

The situation is very simple. The info-pmdf list is a very active one, with
lots of messages about PMDF. We are constantly under fire for cluttering up
people's mailboxes with issues that are clearly unrelated to PMDF. Readers of
info-pmdf constantly send me mail about the lack of focus of the list, and they
constantly urge me to try to keep the discussion focused on products that the
list is intended to discuss.

Posting of material that is quite clearly not a PMDF problem on the info-pmdf
list is inappropriate. Period. I was simply pointing out this basic fact, and
thus far I've received two private messages commending me for taking this
stance for a change. I usually don't and I usually get yelled at a lot for it.

> group would/could have offered assistance.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. This argument leads directly to every message
no matter what the subject being posted to every mailing list in existence,
since there there's a faint chance that someone on some list might just have
some additional insight into the problem.

Or perhaps we should have limited things to the software involved. Let's see,
we could have crossposted to info-vax, info-multinet, and probably to an
assortment of UNIX-related and hardware-related lists. Perhaps some newsgroups
like comp.lang.c and comp.lang.pascal could be added because of the languages
the various products are written in. These things could also comprise part of
the problem, and the readers of those lists might be able to offer some
insight, right?

The real problem is that such crossposting can actually work -- you reach a
wider audience and the likelihood of someone knowing how to fix the problem
really is greater. But the cost is great and this far outweighs the benefit.

As for this being a PMDF problem, how could it possibly be a PMDF problem? 
Pine dumped core. Even if a PMDF bug offered up an endless stream of binary
trash in response to some Pine action it is still bogus for Pine to dump core.
Not dumping core no matter what the provocation is a fundamental property of
all robust software, and both my own use of Pine as well as everything I've
heard about it leads me to believe that it is intended to be very robust and
capable.

> I seem to be detecting....

No such attitude was expressed or implied. I did not say that PMDF is not what
is causing the problem -- it probably is what is causing the problem. But
PMDF's actions are irrelevant; no matter what PMDF does Pine should not dump
core because of it.

> I'm not so sure it is worth it.  I'd rather stick

You are of course entitled to your opinion. However, you should be aware of a
couple of things. First, James posts quite frequently to the info-pmdf list
with genuine PMDF issues. This is what the list is for and as far as I know I
have always responded quickly and informatively to the questions he has brought
up.

You might also want to consider what the Pine maintainers would say if we
constantly discussed PMDF on the info-pine list.

In conclusion, I was simply taking a position numerous info-pmdf readers and
users of the product have asked me to take on such matters. Thus far, your lone
voice is the one dissenting view, and I find your conclusions to be
unwarranted, your arguments to be specious, and your position to be untenable.

				Ned