Subject: Re: PINE-INFO digest 1290

From: Matt Ackeret <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:58:53 -0800 (PST)

>Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:12:15 -0700 (MST)
>From: Shane Castle <[email-masked]>
>On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Matt Ackeret wrote:
>>This is with pine 4.44.
>>
>>How do I figure out what's invalid about it?
>
>Why do you think there's anything invalid about it?
...
>>Seems like pine shouldn't be sending invalid messages..
>
>And as far as I can tell it isn't.  You sent an empty message and Pine
>told you it was empty.  It never said it was invalid.

Well, "possibly malformed" is a pretty serious warning.

Seems to me that pine should be able to tell whether the message is malformed
or not, at least in this simple (empty body) case.

---

From: Mats Dufberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 23:39:37 +0100 (CET)

On Feb 18, 2002, 10:58 (-0800) Matt Ackeret <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Seems to me that pine should be able to tell whether the message is
> malformed or not, at least in this simple (empty body) case.

I agree with you. I don't know why pine uses such strong warning. It would
be enough with "empty mail body", if any.

I often send short mail messages with all text in subject. Mostly to
myself to remind myself of something, but also to colleagues.

Mats

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mats Dufberg                                 [email-masked]
Blåarvsgränd 42                                    +46-8-38 48 59
SE-162 45 Vällingby, Sweden                       +46-70-258 2588