Issue235

Title incorrent To: headers in mail sent from tracker upon error processing email
Priority bug Status chatting
Superseder Nosy List gregory.p.smith, loewis
Assigned To Topics

Created on 2009-02-18.05:11:47 by gregory.p.smith, last changed 2009-02-18.07:20:16 by gregory.p.smith.

Messages
msg1141 (view) Author: gregory.p.smith Date: 2009-02-18.05:11:46
I tried to reply to an issue via email to add a note.  That failed.  But more
interesting is that:

A) the To: header in the email from the tracker is messed up (see the headers
below).
B) I received the failure email from the tracker at all (it apparently used my
actual email address to perform the delivery, despite messing up the To: header).

It looks like something expecting a sequence got a string.  Possibly a mimetools
usage issue as headers can often have multiple values thus it expects sequences
rather than individual strings somewhere?


Delivered-To: greg@krypto.org
Received: by 10.103.118.18 with SMTP id v18cs239649mum;
        Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.181.61.7 with SMTP id o7mr2623482bkk.51.1234927936727;
        Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <roundup-admin@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Received: from psf.upfronthosting.co.za (bugs.python.org [88.198.142.26])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 19si6367756bwz.83.2009.02.17.19.32.15;
        Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 88.198.142.26 is neither permitted nor denied
by best guess record for domain of roundup-admin@psf.upfronthosting.co.za)
client-ip=88.198.142.26;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 88.198.142.26 is
neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of
roundup-admin@psf.upfronthosting.co.za)
smtp.mail=roundup-admin@psf.upfronthosting.co.za
Received: from psf.upfronthosting.co.za (localhost [10.0.0.1])
	by psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F387863C
	for <greg@krypto.org>; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 04:32:15 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
    boundary="88.198.142.26.1006.25012.1234927935.280.1"
Subject: Failed issue tracker submission
To: g@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, r@psf.upfronthosting.co.za,
	e@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, g@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, "",
	k@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, r@psf.upfronthosting.co.za,
	y@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, p@psf.upfronthosting.co.za,
	t@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, o@psf.upfronthosting.co.za,
	"."@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, o@psf.upfronthosting.co.za,
	r@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, g@psf.upfronthosting.co.za
From: Python tracker <roundup-admin@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:32:15 +0000
X-Roundup-Name: Python tracker
X-Roundup-Loop: hello
X-Roundup-Version: 1.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <20090218033215.44F387863C@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>


--88.198.142.26.1006.25012.1234927935.280.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


An unexpected error occurred during the processing
of your message. The tracker administrator is being
notified.

....
msg1142 (view) Author: loewis Date: 2009-02-18.06:33:38
> I tried to reply to an issue via email to add a note.  That failed.  But more
> interesting is that:

Do you still have the message that caused the failure? The reply said
that I should have received an error message, but I can't find that.
msg1143 (view) Author: gregory.p.smith Date: 2009-02-18.07:20:15
heres the message in its entirety (i've since cut and pasted my response into
the issue via the web interface).

                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
               
Delivered-To: greg@krypto.org
Received: by 10.103.118.18 with SMTP id v18cs239649mum;
        Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.181.61.7 with SMTP id o7mr2623482bkk.51.1234927936727;
        Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <roundup-admin@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Received: from psf.upfronthosting.co.za (bugs.python.org [88.198.142.26])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 19si6367756bwz.83.2009.02.17.19.32.15;
        Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 88.198.142.26 is neither permitted nor denied
by best guess record for domain of roundup-admin@psf.upfronthosting.co.za)
client-ip=88.198.142.26;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 88.198.142.26 is
neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of
roundup-admin@psf.upfronthosting.co.za)
smtp.mail=roundup-admin@psf.upfronthosting.co.za
Received: from psf.upfronthosting.co.za (localhost [10.0.0.1])
	by psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F387863C
	for <greg@krypto.org>; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 04:32:15 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
    boundary="88.198.142.26.1006.25012.1234927935.280.1"
Subject: Failed issue tracker submission
To: g@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, r@psf.upfronthosting.co.za,
	e@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, g@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, "",
	k@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, r@psf.upfronthosting.co.za,
	y@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, p@psf.upfronthosting.co.za,
	t@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, o@psf.upfronthosting.co.za,
	"."@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, o@psf.upfronthosting.co.za,
	r@psf.upfronthosting.co.za, g@psf.upfronthosting.co.za
From: Python tracker <roundup-admin@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:32:15 +0000
X-Roundup-Name: Python tracker
X-Roundup-Loop: hello
X-Roundup-Version: 1.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <20090218033215.44F387863C@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>


--88.198.142.26.1006.25012.1234927935.280.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


An unexpected error occurred during the processing
of your message. The tracker administrator is being
notified.

--88.198.142.26.1006.25012.1234927935.280.1
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment
Content-Description: Message you sent

Return-Path: <greg@krypto.org>
X-Original-To: report@bugs.python.org
Delivered-To: roundup+tracker@psf.upfronthosting.co.za
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.158])
	by psf.upfronthosting.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2324078590
	for <report@bugs.python.org>; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 04:32:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 13so580429fge.20
        for <report@bugs.python.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:32:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.5.14 with SMTP id h14mr4199439mui.108.1234927929576; Tue, 
	17 Feb 2009 19:32:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1234911749.63.0.657212726256.issue4258@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
References: <1225795512.12.0.546973896448.issue4258@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
	 <1234911749.63.0.657212726256.issue4258@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:32:09 -0800
Message-ID: <52dc1c820902171932p4441cbdfqc6a15a380b8a2d37@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [issue4258] Use 30-bit digits instead of 15-bit digits for Python 
	integers.
From: "Gregory P. Smith" <greg@krypto.org>
To: Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e649d9a290ce81046329101e

--0016e649d9a290ce81046329101e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> => I would suggest to use 2^30 base only if sizeof(long)>=8 (64 bits
CPU).
Thats not the correct test.  Test for an actual 64-bit build target.
 sizeof(long) and sizeof(long long) are not usefully related to that in any
sort of cross platform manner.  On windows, we'd define the flag for 15 vs
30 bit longs in the build configs for the various build targets.  On every
thing else (autoconf), we can use a configure test to check the same things
that platform.architecture() checks to return '32bit' vs '64bit'.

--0016e649d9a290ce81046329101e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

&gt;&nbsp;<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: collap=
se; ">=3D&gt; I would suggest to use 2^30 base only if sizeof(long)&gt;=3D8=
 (64 bits<br>CPU).</span><div><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"bor=
der-collapse: collapse;"><br>
</span></div><div><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse=
: collapse;">Thats not the correct test. &nbsp;Test for an actual 64-bit bu=
ild target. &nbsp;sizeof(long) and sizeof(long long) are not usefully relat=
ed to that in any sort of cross platform manner. &nbsp;On windows, we&#39;d=
 define the flag for 15 vs 30 bit longs in the build configs for the variou=
s build targets. &nbsp;On every thing else (autoconf), we can use a configu=
re test to check the same things that platform.architecture() checks to ret=
urn &#39;32bit&#39; vs &#39;64bit&#39;.</span></div>
<div><br></div>

--0016e649d9a290ce81046329101e--

--88.198.142.26.1006.25012.1234927935.280.1--
History
Date User Action Args
2009-02-18 07:20:16gregory.p.smithsetmessages: + msg1143
2009-02-18 06:33:39loewissetstatus: unread -> chatting
nosy: + loewis
messages: + msg1142
2009-02-18 05:11:47gregory.p.smithcreate