Hello,
Mail server in ST has recently changed and now we have Microsoft
exchange server. We are using thunderbird as mail client.
What we observed with this server is that patch are broken now while
sending as well as receiving. Tabs are replaced by spaces and may
be some other too which we haven't observed.
Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are there any
workarounds possible?
viresh
ST Microelectronics.
On 08/08/2010 11:07 PM, viresh kumar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Mail server in ST has recently changed and now we have Microsoft
> exchange server. We are using thunderbird as mail client.
> What we observed with this server is that patch are broken now while
> sending as well as receiving. Tabs are replaced by spaces and may
> be some other too which we haven't observed.
>
> Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are there any
> workarounds possible?
>
> viresh
> ST Microelectronics.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
still trying to figure this out with thunderbird.. but did notice in
Documentation/email-clients.txt and SubmittingPatches
there's info about that(just haven't gotten around to reading use git
send-email for patches)
hope this helps.
Justin P. Mattock
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:37:33AM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Mail server in ST has recently changed and now we have Microsoft
> exchange server. We are using thunderbird as mail client.
> What we observed with this server is that patch are broken now while
> sending as well as receiving. Tabs are replaced by spaces and may
> be some other too which we haven't observed.
unlucky you.
> Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are there any
> workarounds possible?
git.git has some tips for thunderbird, see
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/SubmittingPatches;hb=HEAD
and look for the section titled "Thunderbird" (small surprise).
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On 8/9/2010 12:12 PM, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> On 08/08/2010 11:07 PM, viresh kumar wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > Mail server in ST has recently changed and now we have Microsoft
>> > exchange server. We are using thunderbird as mail client.
>> > What we observed with this server is that patch are broken now while
>> > sending as well as receiving. Tabs are replaced by spaces and may
>> > be some other too which we haven't observed.
>> >
>> > Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are there any
>> > workarounds possible?
>> >
>
> still trying to figure this out with thunderbird.. but did notice in
> Documentation/email-clients.txt and SubmittingPatches
> there's info about that(just haven't gotten around to reading use git
> send-email for patches)
>
> hope this helps.
I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git send-email for
sending patches. As patches will go through Microsoft exchange server only,
so they are broken.
viresh.
On 8/9/2010 12:19 PM, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:37:33AM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > Mail server in ST has recently changed and now we have Microsoft
>> > exchange server. We are using thunderbird as mail client.
>> > What we observed with this server is that patch are broken now while
>> > sending as well as receiving. Tabs are replaced by spaces and may
>> > be some other too which we haven't observed.
> unlucky you.
>
>> > Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are there any
>> > workarounds possible?
> git.git has some tips for thunderbird, see
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/SubmittingPatches;hb=HEAD
>
> and look for the section titled "Thunderbird" (small surprise).
I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git send-email for
sending patches. As patches will go through Microsoft exchange server only,
so they are broken.
With previous server everything was working fine.
viresh.
2010/8/9 viresh kumar <[email protected]>:
> On 8/9/2010 12:19 PM, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:37:33AM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>>> > Hello,
>>> >
>>> > Mail server in ST has recently changed and now we have Microsoft
>>> > exchange server. We are using thunderbird as mail client.
>>> > What we observed with this server is that patch are broken now while
>>> > sending as well as receiving. Tabs are replaced by spaces and may
>>> > be some other too which we haven't observed.
>> unlucky you.
>>
>>> > Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are there any
>>> > workarounds possible?
>> git.git has some tips for thunderbird, see
>>
>> ? ? ? http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/SubmittingPatches;hb=HEAD
>>
>> and look for the section titled "Thunderbird" (small surprise).
>
> I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git send-email for
> sending patches. As patches will go through Microsoft exchange server only,
> so they are broken.
>
> With previous server everything was working fine.
You might want to take a look at
http://bombadil.infradead.org/~mcgrof/MS-exchange-sucks-for-patches/
for a possible explanation. Long story short: upgrade Exchange, or use
a different SMTP server that doesn't try to be smarter than its users
(or should that be an SMTP server that isn't just plain
arse-backwards?).
Valeo
On 08/08/2010 11:55 PM, viresh kumar wrote:
> On 8/9/2010 12:12 PM, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>> On 08/08/2010 11:07 PM, viresh kumar wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Mail server in ST has recently changed and now we have Microsoft
>>>> exchange server. We are using thunderbird as mail client.
>>>> What we observed with this server is that patch are broken now while
>>>> sending as well as receiving. Tabs are replaced by spaces and may
>>>> be some other too which we haven't observed.
>>>>
>>>> Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are there any
>>>> workarounds possible?
>>>>
>>
>> still trying to figure this out with thunderbird.. but did notice in
>> Documentation/email-clients.txt and SubmittingPatches
>> there's info about that(just haven't gotten around to reading use git
>> send-email for patches)
>>
>> hope this helps.
>
> I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git send-email for
> sending patches. As patches will go through Microsoft exchange server only,
> so they are broken.
>
> viresh.
>
hmm.. then I don't know the answer to that.. always send through git
send-email(patches)and things are good(knock-on-wood)always ran into
issues with copy/pasting onto thunderbird. Hopefully somebody else with
more knowledge of using git send-email patches through microsoft
exchange answers this..
side note: maybe postfix or some type of wrapper around the wording
message(utf-8) to keep microsoft from mangling things or
something.(tough to say though)
Justin P. Mattock
On 8/9/2010 12:49 PM, Valeo de Vries wrote:
> 2010/8/9 viresh kumar <[email protected]>:
>> > On 8/9/2010 12:19 PM, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
>>> >> Hello,
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:37:33AM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>>>>> >>> > Hello,
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> > Mail server in ST has recently changed and now we have Microsoft
>>>>> >>> > exchange server. We are using thunderbird as mail client.
>>>>> >>> > What we observed with this server is that patch are broken now while
>>>>> >>> > sending as well as receiving. Tabs are replaced by spaces and may
>>>>> >>> > be some other too which we haven't observed.
>>> >> unlucky you.
>>> >>
>>>>> >>> > Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are there any
>>>>> >>> > workarounds possible?
>>> >> git.git has some tips for thunderbird, see
>>> >>
>>> >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/SubmittingPatches;hb=HEAD
>>> >>
>>> >> and look for the section titled "Thunderbird" (small surprise).
>> >
>> > I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git send-email for
>> > sending patches. As patches will go through Microsoft exchange server only,
>> > so they are broken.
>> >
>> > With previous server everything was working fine.
> You might want to take a look at
> http://bombadil.infradead.org/~mcgrof/MS-exchange-sucks-for-patches/
> for a possible explanation. Long story short: upgrade Exchange, or use
> a different SMTP server that doesn't try to be smarter than its users
> (or should that be an SMTP server that isn't just plain
> arse-backwards?).
Valeo,
Thanks for this. It really helped us.
viresh.
On 9 August 2010 08:47, viresh kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Valeo,
>
> Thanks for this. It really helped us.
No worries!
Valeo
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>
> I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git send-email for
> sending patches. As patches will go through Microsoft exchange server only,
> so they are broken.
>
Let your boss complain to your IT keepers.
"These are Machine-to-Machine messages, they must not be modified!"
It would probably be "against corporate policy" to use gmail for these emails...
> With previous server everything was working fine.
> viresh.
Best Regards, Matti Aarnio, one of <postmaster at vger.kernel.org>
On 8/9/2010 2:31 PM, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>> >
>> > I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git send-email for
>> > sending patches. As patches will go through Microsoft exchange server only,
>> > so they are broken.
>> >
> Let your boss complain to your IT keepers.
> "These are Machine-to-Machine messages, they must not be modified!"
>
>
> It would probably be "against corporate policy" to use gmail for these emails...
>
We got one solution: Upgrade Exchange server to SP2.
Lets see if our IT department does this upgradation.
viresh.
On 08/09/2010 02:35 AM, viresh kumar wrote:
> On 8/9/2010 2:31 PM, Matti Aarnio wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git send-email for
>>>> sending patches. As patches will go through Microsoft exchange server only,
>>>> so they are broken.
>>>>
>> Let your boss complain to your IT keepers.
>> "These are Machine-to-Machine messages, they must not be modified!"
>>
>>
>> It would probably be "against corporate policy" to use gmail for these emails...
>>
>
> We got one solution: Upgrade Exchange server to SP2.
> Lets see if our IT department does this upgradation.
>
> viresh.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
that or just blast them with some cryptology..i.e. pretty sure if your
message was encapsulated(AH/ESP) they couldn't tweak it.. but then
sending such encryption to a public list would require a _key_ on the
other side.. wishful thinking...
(just a thought)...
:-)
Justin P. Mattock
On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 12:01 +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> It would probably be "against corporate policy" to use gmail for these
> emails...
If that's the case, then you really *do* need to get your boss to fix
it.
If the company provides a working email account, it makes a certain
amount of sense for them to ask you to use it.
But if all they provide is Microsoft Exchange, that's insane -- what
Exchange provides is *like* email, but it is *not* email. Once you start
trying to use it for real email, you find it's broken by design in a
large number of ways. It makes no sense for them to require that you use
Exchange for Internet email, because that's not what Exchange does.
If my corporate overloads told me I had to use my Exchange "messaging"
account for external email communication, they would get a quite clear
'no' in response. My response may also contain suggestions that they use
certain other objects for purposes for which they were not designed.
Seriously, just use an external email account and ignore the broken
corporate policy. 'Policy' is just a euphemism for not having to think
for yourself.
--
dwmw2
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:37:33AM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>
> Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are there any
> workarounds possible?
I have this same problem. The exchange server rewrites incoming and
outgoing plain text emails as it sees fit, and our IT department seems
unable to turn this "feature" off.
One work around is to get an gmail account and use IMAP.
Good luck,
Richard
On 9 August 2010 15:19, Richard Cochran <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:37:33AM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>>
>> Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are there any
>> workarounds possible?
>
> I have this same problem. The exchange server rewrites incoming and
> outgoing plain text emails as it sees fit, and our IT department seems
> unable to turn this "feature" off.
>
> One work around is to get an gmail account and use IMAP.
The other solution is to kindly request that one's IS department
upgrades Exchange so that this particular issue (of converting tabs to
spaces) won't be a problem any longer... ;)
You're right though, it's probably easier just to use another provider
for e-mail, as this isn't the only way Exchange will mess with
patches.
Valeo
On Monday 09 August 2010 12:43:16 Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> On 08/09/2010 02:35 AM, viresh kumar wrote:
> > On 8/9/2010 2:31 PM, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> >>>> I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git send-email
> >>>> for sending patches. As patches will go through Microsoft exchange
> >>>> server only, so they are broken.
> >>
> >> Let your boss complain to your IT keepers.
> >> "These are Machine-to-Machine messages, they must not be modified!"
> >>
> >>
> >> It would probably be "against corporate policy" to use gmail for these
> >> emails...
> >
> > We got one solution: Upgrade Exchange server to SP2.
> > Lets see if our IT department does this upgradation.
>
> that or just blast them with some cryptology..i.e. pretty sure if your
> message was encapsulated(AH/ESP) they couldn't tweak it.. but then
> sending such encryption to a public list would require a _key_ on the
> other side.. wishful thinking...
> (just a thought)...
Shouldn't just signing the message be enough? The server (normally) would not
alter it, otherwise it will break the signature (which is a too obvious bug
even for Microsoft). Or am I missing something here?
PS: A local SMTP with DKIM signing capabilities could be another possibility,
assuming Exchange does not break such signatures.
--
Mihai Donțu
On 08/09/2010 07:35 AM, Mihai Donțu wrote:
> On Monday 09 August 2010 12:43:16 Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>> On 08/09/2010 02:35 AM, viresh kumar wrote:
>>> On 8/9/2010 2:31 PM, Matti Aarnio wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>>>>>> I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git send-email
>>>>>> for sending patches. As patches will go through Microsoft exchange
>>>>>> server only, so they are broken.
>>>>
>>>> Let your boss complain to your IT keepers.
>>>> "These are Machine-to-Machine messages, they must not be modified!"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would probably be "against corporate policy" to use gmail for these
>>>> emails...
>>>
>>> We got one solution: Upgrade Exchange server to SP2.
>>> Lets see if our IT department does this upgradation.
>>
>> that or just blast them with some cryptology..i.e. pretty sure if your
>> message was encapsulated(AH/ESP) they couldn't tweak it.. but then
>> sending such encryption to a public list would require a _key_ on the
>> other side.. wishful thinking...
>> (just a thought)...
>
> Shouldn't just signing the message be enough? The server (normally) would not
> alter it, otherwise it will break the signature (which is a too obvious bug
> even for Microsoft). Or am I missing something here?
>
> PS: A local SMTP with DKIM signing capabilities could be another possibility,
> assuming Exchange does not break such signatures.
>
yeah that would probably be just enough to get through without Microsoft
mucking around with the font etc.., but the biggest problem(I see) with
the encryption is having the key on the other end of the line.
Justin P. Mattock
On Monday 09 August 2010 20:55:08 Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> On 08/09/2010 07:35 AM, Mihai Donțu wrote:
> > On Monday 09 August 2010 12:43:16 Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> >> On 08/09/2010 02:35 AM, viresh kumar wrote:
> >>> On 8/9/2010 2:31 PM, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> >>>>>> I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git
> >>>>>> send-email for sending patches. As patches will go through
> >>>>>> Microsoft exchange server only, so they are broken.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let your boss complain to your IT keepers.
> >>>> "These are Machine-to-Machine messages, they must not be modified!"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It would probably be "against corporate policy" to use gmail for these
> >>>> emails...
> >>>
> >>> We got one solution: Upgrade Exchange server to SP2.
> >>> Lets see if our IT department does this upgradation.
> >>
> >> that or just blast them with some cryptology..i.e. pretty sure if your
> >> message was encapsulated(AH/ESP) they couldn't tweak it.. but then
> >> sending such encryption to a public list would require a _key_ on the
> >> other side.. wishful thinking...
> >> (just a thought)...
> >
> > Shouldn't just signing the message be enough? The server (normally) would
> > not alter it, otherwise it will break the signature (which is a too
> > obvious bug even for Microsoft). Or am I missing something here?
> >
> > PS: A local SMTP with DKIM signing capabilities could be another
> > possibility, assuming Exchange does not break such signatures.
>
> yeah that would probably be just enough to get through without Microsoft
> mucking around with the font etc.., but the biggest problem(I see) with
> the encryption is having the key on the other end of the line.
Wait. I don't think we're on the same page here. I'm talking about message
signing (which does not require the receiving end to have any key - it's the
same plain text e-mail with a blob after it) while you refer to actually
encrypting the message. Mm? Or am I being extremely slow today? :-)
--
Mihai Donțu
On 08/09/2010 11:15 AM, Mihai Donțu wrote:
> On Monday 09 August 2010 20:55:08 Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>> On 08/09/2010 07:35 AM, Mihai Donțu wrote:
>>> On Monday 09 August 2010 12:43:16 Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>>>> On 08/09/2010 02:35 AM, viresh kumar wrote:
>>>>> On 8/9/2010 2:31 PM, Matti Aarnio wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>>>>>>>> I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git
>>>>>>>> send-email for sending patches. As patches will go through
>>>>>>>> Microsoft exchange server only, so they are broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let your boss complain to your IT keepers.
>>>>>> "These are Machine-to-Machine messages, they must not be modified!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would probably be "against corporate policy" to use gmail for these
>>>>>> emails...
>>>>>
>>>>> We got one solution: Upgrade Exchange server to SP2.
>>>>> Lets see if our IT department does this upgradation.
>>>>
>>>> that or just blast them with some cryptology..i.e. pretty sure if your
>>>> message was encapsulated(AH/ESP) they couldn't tweak it.. but then
>>>> sending such encryption to a public list would require a _key_ on the
>>>> other side.. wishful thinking...
>>>> (just a thought)...
>>>
>>> Shouldn't just signing the message be enough? The server (normally) would
>>> not alter it, otherwise it will break the signature (which is a too
>>> obvious bug even for Microsoft). Or am I missing something here?
>>>
>>> PS: A local SMTP with DKIM signing capabilities could be another
>>> possibility, assuming Exchange does not break such signatures.
>>
>> yeah that would probably be just enough to get through without Microsoft
>> mucking around with the font etc.., but the biggest problem(I see) with
>> the encryption is having the key on the other end of the line.
>
> Wait. I don't think we're on the same page here. I'm talking about message
> signing (which does not require the receiving end to have any key - it's the
> same plain text e-mail with a blob after it) while you refer to actually
> encrypting the message. Mm? Or am I being extremely slow today? :-)
>
no were on the same page.. keep in mind though I'm not sure how the
message signing thing really works, if it's just a signature verifying
that it's from you without the other end(recipient) accepting anything,
then the question is will microsoft still scan the email and garble it up?
Now if it's a signature where the other end needs to accept the sender
then im guessing there's a little bit of encryption there to keep
microsoft database scanner from doing anything(but keep in mind I never
really setup the signature thing on e-mails so I could totally be wrong)
Justin P. Mattock
On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 21:15 +0300, Mihai Donțu wrote:
>
> Wait. I don't think we're on the same page here. I'm talking about message
> signing (which does not require the receiving end to have any key - it's the
> same plain text e-mail with a blob after it) while you refer to actually
> encrypting the message. Mm? Or am I being extremely slow today? :-)
Only when you assume that Exchange would pass signed messages without
corrupting them. It really is that broken.
--
dwmw2
On 08/09/2010 02:28 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 21:15 +0300, Mihai Donțu wrote:
>>
>> Wait. I don't think we're on the same page here. I'm talking about message
>> signing (which does not require the receiving end to have any key - it's the
>> same plain text e-mail with a blob after it) while you refer to actually
>> encrypting the message. Mm? Or am I being extremely slow today? :-)
>
> Only when you assume that Exchange would pass signed messages without
> corrupting them. It really is that broken.
>
figured the encryption would be kind of a last resort situation..but if
it's that broken to where it wont pass it along without corrupting, then
the best solution is to figure out what Microsoft needs in terms of
encoding, i.e. is there a way to have the scanner scan but not throw
everything around after it scans.(if this is what it's doing)
Justin P. Mattock
On 9 August 2010 22:56, Justin P. Mattock <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/09/2010 02:28 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 21:15 +0300, Mihai Donțu wrote:
>>>
>>> Wait. I don't think we're on the same page here. I'm talking about
>>> message
>>> signing (which does not require the receiving end to have any key - it's
>>> the
>>> same plain text e-mail with a blob after it) while you refer to actually
>>> encrypting the message. Mm? Or am I being extremely slow today? :-)
>>
>> Only when you assume that Exchange would pass signed messages without
>> corrupting them. It really is that broken.
>>
>
> figured the encryption would be kind of a last resort situation..but if it's
> that broken to where it wont pass it along without corrupting, then the best
> solution is to figure out what Microsoft needs in terms of encoding, i.e. is
> there a way to have the scanner scan but not throw everything around after
> it scans.(if this is what it's doing)
The link I posted earlier seems to give the impression that
quoted-printable might do that. I may have misread that, though...
Valeo
On 08/09/2010 03:12 PM, Valeo de Vries wrote:
> On 9 August 2010 22:56, Justin P. Mattock<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 08/09/2010 02:28 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 21:15 +0300, Mihai Donțu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wait. I don't think we're on the same page here. I'm talking about
>>>> message
>>>> signing (which does not require the receiving end to have any key - it's
>>>> the
>>>> same plain text e-mail with a blob after it) while you refer to actually
>>>> encrypting the message. Mm? Or am I being extremely slow today? :-)
>>>
>>> Only when you assume that Exchange would pass signed messages without
>>> corrupting them. It really is that broken.
>>>
>>
>> figured the encryption would be kind of a last resort situation..but if it's
>> that broken to where it wont pass it along without corrupting, then the best
>> solution is to figure out what Microsoft needs in terms of encoding, i.e. is
>> there a way to have the scanner scan but not throw everything around after
>> it scans.(if this is what it's doing)
>
> The link I posted earlier seems to give the impression that
> quoted-printable might do that. I may have misread that, though...
>
> Valeo
>
make sense.. Im wondering if it's a simple tell microsoft to scan the
original email, take the garbled copied email and send out the original
email rather than updating exchange etc...
Justin P. Mattock
viresh kumar wrote:
> On 8/9/2010 2:31 PM, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git send-email for
> >> > sending patches. As patches will go through Microsoft exchange server only,
> >> > so they are broken.
> >> >
> > Let your boss complain to your IT keepers.
> > "These are Machine-to-Machine messages, they must not be modified!"
> >
> >
> > It would probably be "against corporate policy" to use gmail for these emails...
> >
>
> We got one solution: Upgrade Exchange server to SP2.
> Lets see if our IT department does this upgradation.
>
Upgrading the Exchange server worked for us a couple of years ago. At least
git-send-email works okay now, but Outlook is horribly broken.
You could use gmail/others and send externally. Adding an explicit
"From :" line in the patch can still give you credits to your official
email address.
- Anand
On 8/10/2010 2:52 PM, Gadiyar, Anand wrote:
> viresh kumar wrote:
>> > On 8/9/2010 2:31 PM, Matti Aarnio wrote:
>>> > > On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>>>>> > >> >
>>>>> > >> > I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git send-email for
>>>>> > >> > sending patches. As patches will go through Microsoft exchange server only,
>>>>> > >> > so they are broken.
>>>>> > >> >
>>> > > Let your boss complain to your IT keepers.
>>> > > "These are Machine-to-Machine messages, they must not be modified!"
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > It would probably be "against corporate policy" to use gmail for these emails...
>>> > >
>> >
>> > We got one solution: Upgrade Exchange server to SP2.
>> > Lets see if our IT department does this upgradation.
>> >
> Upgrading the Exchange server worked for us a couple of years ago. At least
> git-send-email works okay now, but Outlook is horribly broken.
>
> You could use gmail/others and send externally. Adding an explicit
> "From :" line in the patch can still give you credits to your official
> email address.
>
Thanks Anand.
Lets see if our IT support team manages to upgrade to SP2 or not.
viresh.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:07 AM, viresh kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mail server in ST has recently changed and now we have Microsoft
> exchange server. We are using thunderbird as mail client.
> What we observed with this server is that patch are broken now while
> sending as well as receiving. Tabs are replaced by spaces and may
> be some other too which we haven't observed.
>
> Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are there any
> workarounds possible?
Same in Nokia. I wrote a script to fix exchange's crap, but I also
noticed some quoted-printable mails didn't get converted, so the
easiest would be to tell git to always send quoted-printable.
git folks: any chance of getting that feature to git send-email?
--
Felipe Contreras
On 8/11/2010 3:34 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:07 AM, viresh kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Mail server in ST has recently changed and now we have Microsoft
>> > exchange server. We are using thunderbird as mail client.
>> > What we observed with this server is that patch are broken now while
>> > sending as well as receiving. Tabs are replaced by spaces and may
>> > be some other too which we haven't observed.
>> >
>> > Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are there any
>> > workarounds possible?
> Same in Nokia. I wrote a script to fix exchange's crap, but I also
> noticed some quoted-printable mails didn't get converted, so the
> easiest would be to tell git to always send quoted-printable.
>
Hi Guys
The situation has changed now.
We are informed that SP2 is already in place in ST and mail client is not
doing any tampering.
When i send a mail using git send-email then it receives fine on
outlook but on thunderbird, tabs are converted to spaces.
This doesn't happen with every patch on thunderbird, but only a few.
And observation is that it happens only with big patches.
(more than 500 lines)
Any idea, how to solve issue now on thunderbird??
viresh.
On 11 August 2010 08:01, viresh kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/11/2010 3:34 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:07 AM, viresh kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > Mail server in ST has recently changed and now we have Microsoft
>>> > exchange server. We are using thunderbird as mail client.
>>> > What we observed with this server is that patch are broken now while
>>> > sending as well as receiving. Tabs are replaced by spaces and may
>>> > be some other too which we haven't observed.
>>> >
>>> > Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are there any
>>> > workarounds possible?
>> Same in Nokia. I wrote a script to fix exchange's crap, but I also
>> noticed some quoted-printable mails didn't get converted, so the
>> easiest would be to tell git to always send quoted-printable.
>>
>
> Hi Guys
>
> The situation has changed now.
> We are informed that SP2 is already in place in ST and mail client is not
> doing any tampering.
>
> When i send a mail using git send-email then it receives fine on
> outlook but on thunderbird, tabs are converted to spaces.
>
> This doesn't happen with every patch on thunderbird, but only a few.
> And observation is that it happens only with big patches.
> (more than 500 lines)
>
> Any idea, how to solve issue now on thunderbird??
You might be in luck:
* Choose View ? Toolbars to ensure that the formatting toolbar is visible,
then at the left of the formatting toolbar change Body Text to Preformat.
(lifted straight from Google)
HTH,
Valeo
On 8/11/2010 3:41 PM, Valeo de Vries wrote:
> On 11 August 2010 08:01, viresh kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On 8/11/2010 3:34 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> >> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:07 AM, viresh kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> >>> > Mail server in ST has recently changed and now we have Microsoft
>>>>> >>> > exchange server. We are using thunderbird as mail client.
>>>>> >>> > What we observed with this server is that patch are broken now while
>>>>> >>> > sending as well as receiving. Tabs are replaced by spaces and may
>>>>> >>> > be some other too which we haven't observed.
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> > Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are there any
>>>>> >>> > workarounds possible?
>>> >> Same in Nokia. I wrote a script to fix exchange's crap, but I also
>>> >> noticed some quoted-printable mails didn't get converted, so the
>>> >> easiest would be to tell git to always send quoted-printable.
>>> >>
>> >
>> > Hi Guys
>> >
>> > The situation has changed now.
>> > We are informed that SP2 is already in place in ST and mail client is not
>> > doing any tampering.
>> >
>> > When i send a mail using git send-email then it receives fine on
>> > outlook but on thunderbird, tabs are converted to spaces.
>> >
>> > This doesn't happen with every patch on thunderbird, but only a few.
>> > And observation is that it happens only with big patches.
>> > (more than 500 lines)
>> >
>> > Any idea, how to solve issue now on thunderbird??
> You might be in luck:
>
> * Choose View ? Toolbars to ensure that the formatting toolbar is visible,
> then at the left of the formatting toolbar change Body Text to Preformat.
> (lifted straight from Google)
I couldn't find preformat. Is this same as plain text? If so i have tried it.
I am not facing problem while writing mails from thunderbird but while receiving
patches on thunderbird.
PS: The problem stated in google is while writing mails.
viresh.
On 08/11/2010 12:53 PM, viresh kumar wrote:
> I couldn't find preformat. Is this same as plain text? If so i have tried it.
> I am not facing problem while writing mails from thunderbird but while receiving
> patches on thunderbird.
My thunderbird with default settings does not replace tabs with spaces.
Perhaps the difference between outlook and thunderbird has to do with
the method of connecting? On thunderbird you probably use IMAP to get
your email from exchange, the IMAP system is horrible on exchange.
I suspect it has to do with the implementation of rules regarding
spaces. The conformance documentation [1] of MS does not detail this
sufficiently, but I am pretty sure that if you use an alternate mail
client you will see the spaces replaced also when connecting through IMAP.
[1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee624585%28v=EXCHG.80%29.aspx
Wouter
On 08/11/2010 03:11 AM, Valeo de Vries wrote:
> On 11 August 2010 08:01, viresh kumar<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 8/11/2010 3:34 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:07 AM, viresh kumar<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Mail server in ST has recently changed and now we have Microsoft
>>>>> exchange server. We are using thunderbird as mail client.
>>>>> What we observed with this server is that patch are broken now while
>>>>> sending as well as receiving. Tabs are replaced by spaces and may
>>>>> be some other too which we haven't observed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are there any
>>>>> workarounds possible?
>>> Same in Nokia. I wrote a script to fix exchange's crap, but I also
>>> noticed some quoted-printable mails didn't get converted, so the
>>> easiest would be to tell git to always send quoted-printable.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Guys
>>
>> The situation has changed now.
>> We are informed that SP2 is already in place in ST and mail client is not
>> doing any tampering.
>>
>> When i send a mail using git send-email then it receives fine on
>> outlook but on thunderbird, tabs are converted to spaces.
>>
>> This doesn't happen with every patch on thunderbird, but only a few.
>> And observation is that it happens only with big patches.
>> (more than 500 lines)
>>
>> Any idea, how to solve issue now on thunderbird??
>
> You might be in luck:
>
> * Choose View ? Toolbars to ensure that the formatting toolbar is visible,
> then at the left of the formatting toolbar change Body Text to Preformat.
> (lifted straight from Google)
>
> HTH,
> Valeo
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
cool... glad it's semi some what working.. doing a quick google Im
getting directed to Documentation/email-clients.txt for thunderbird
in the above procedure.
(hope the above last post fixes your issue, and/or in email-clients.txt)
Justin P. Mattock
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 23:28, David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 21:15 +0300, Mihai Donțu wrote:
>>
>> Wait. I don't think we're on the same page here. I'm talking about message
>> signing (which does not require the receiving end to have any key - it's the
>> same plain text e-mail with a blob after it) while you refer to actually
>> encrypting the message. Mm? Or am I being extremely slow today? :-)
>
> Only when you assume that Exchange would pass signed messages without
> corrupting them. It really is that broken.
Indeed. In my experience Exchange may
- corrupt PGP signed email, causing the signature verification to fail,
- send/forward all email in BASE64, causing it to be dropped by
vger.kernel.org.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 10:46 -0500, Jeffrey Hundstad wrote:
> Exchange 2010 does not handle IMAP "chunking" (partial message transfer)
> correctly. Any request after about 1 megabyte of total message size
> will fail.
>
> Thunderbird uses this "chunking" feature to give you a status update
> while downloading large messages. The IMAP statements are of this type:
> 11 UID fetch 244477 (UID RFC822.SIZE BODY[]<20480.12288>)
>
> When the 20480 is larger than 1MB Exchange "claims" there is no more.
> Sigh....
I think the problem is not with the fetching -- the problem is that
Exchange lies about RFC822.SIZE before the IMAP client even starts to
fetch the message. It reports a size which is smaller than the actual
size of the message, thus leading to truncated fetches.
In Evolution we have a workaround -- we don't just stop when we get to
the reported RFC822.SIZE; we continue fetching more chunks until the
server actually stops giving us any more. It's not as efficient (because
we fall back to having only one more chunk outstanding at a time rather
than the normal three in parallel), but at least it works around this
brokenness of Exchange.
http://git.gnome.org/browse/evolution-data-server/commit/?id=9714c064
--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
[email protected] Intel Corporation
On 08/11/2010 02:01 AM, viresh kumar wrote:
> When i send a mail using git send-email then it receives fine on
> outlook but on thunderbird, tabs are converted to spaces.
>
> This doesn't happen with every patch on thunderbird, but only a few.
> And observation is that it happens only with big patches.
> (more than 500 lines)
>
> Any idea, how to solve issue now on thunderbird??
Hello,
Exchange 2010 does not handle IMAP "chunking" (partial message transfer)
correctly. Any request after about 1 megabyte of total message size
will fail.
Thunderbird uses this "chunking" feature to give you a status update
while downloading large messages. The IMAP statements are of this type:
11 UID fetch 244477 (UID RFC822.SIZE BODY[]<20480.12288>)
When the 20480 is larger than 1MB Exchange "claims" there is no more.
Sigh....
Fortunately you can disable this feature. To disable this in
Thunderbird you can go to the Advanced configuration and disable the
following feature, by setting it to false:
mail.server.default.fetch_by_chunks
--
Jeffrey Hundstad
On 08/11/2010 10:58 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 10:46 -0500, Jeffrey Hundstad wrote:
>> Exchange 2010 does not handle IMAP "chunking" (partial message transfer)
>> correctly. Any request after about 1 megabyte of total message size
>> will fail.
>>
>> Thunderbird uses this "chunking" feature to give you a status update
>> while downloading large messages. The IMAP statements are of this type:
>> 11 UID fetch 244477 (UID RFC822.SIZE BODY[]<20480.12288>)
>>
>> When the 20480 is larger than 1MB Exchange "claims" there is no more.
>> Sigh....
>
> I think the problem is not with the fetching -- the problem is that
> Exchange lies about RFC822.SIZE before the IMAP client even starts to
> fetch the message. It reports a size which is smaller than the actual
> size of the message, thus leading to truncated fetches.
>
> In Evolution we have a workaround -- we don't just stop when we get to
> the reported RFC822.SIZE; we continue fetching more chunks until the
> server actually stops giving us any more. It's not as efficient (because
> we fall back to having only one more chunk outstanding at a time rather
> than the normal three in parallel), but at least it works around this
> brokenness of Exchange.
>
> http://git.gnome.org/browse/evolution-data-server/commit/?id=9714c064
>
In either case it can be used successfully by disabling
mail.server.default.fetch_by_chunks in Thunderbird.
--
Jeffrey Hundstad
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:58 AM, David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> In Evolution we have a workaround -- we don't just stop when we get to
> the reported RFC822.SIZE; we continue fetching more chunks until the
> server actually stops giving us any more. It's not as efficient (because
> we fall back to having only one more chunk outstanding at a time rather
> than the normal three in parallel), but at least it works around this
> brokenness of Exchange.
>
> http://git.gnome.org/browse/evolution-data-server/commit/?id=9714c064
Out of curiosity, why fall back to one chunk at a time? It seems to
me that IMAP should be able to still support multiple outstanding
requests in that case, but you'd just get errors on the latter chunks.
It is just that there was no point optimizing the workaround case?
Have fun,
Avery
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 12:18 -0400, Avery Pennarun wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity, why fall back to one chunk at a time? It seems to
> me that IMAP should be able to still support multiple outstanding
> requests in that case, but you'd just get errors on the latter chunks.
>
> It is just that there was no point optimizing the workaround case?
There wasn't a lot of point in optimising it.
The current logic, shown in the patch I referenced, is to keep fetching
new chunks while the stream position matches the end of the previous
chunk we attempted to fetch.
To handle multiple outstanding requests, especially if they can be
satisfied out-of-order, would have been more complex because the stream
position (in the 'really_fetched' variable) wouldn't necessarily match
anything interesting. We'd have to keep more state, and the whole thing
would get a lot more intrusive.
Also, for the common case where the server isn't broken and the mail
size happens not to fall on a chunk boundary, the current implementation
results in no extra fetch requests. Doing otherwise would either mean
extra fetch requests even for this common case, or would mean even more
complexity to 'catch up' by issuing additional fetch requests as soon as
we realise the server lied about RFC822.SIZE (which is when we receive
the last chunk, and it runs over the size we expected).
It may be that there's a neat and simple way to handle all of the above,
and if so then patches would be welcome -- but personally, I just
couldn't be bothered to think too hard about it. There were more
pressing matters to attend to, like implementing QRESYNC support.
--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
[email protected] Intel Corporation
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:30 PM, David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 12:18 -0400, Avery Pennarun wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, why fall back to one chunk at a time? ?It seems to
>> me that IMAP should be able to still support multiple outstanding
>> requests in that case, but you'd just get errors on the latter chunks.
>>
>> It is just that there was no point optimizing the workaround case?
>
> There wasn't a lot of point in optimising it.
Say no more :)
I code on some IMAP clients occasionally and I just wanted to make
sure I wasn't missing something important.
Thanks!
Avery
On 8/11/2010 9:16 PM, Jeffrey Hundstad wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Exchange 2010 does not handle IMAP "chunking" (partial message transfer)
> correctly. Any request after about 1 megabyte of total message size
> will fail.
>
> Thunderbird uses this "chunking" feature to give you a status update
> while downloading large messages. The IMAP statements are of this type:
> 11 UID fetch 244477 (UID RFC822.SIZE BODY[]<20480.12288>)
>
> When the 20480 is larger than 1MB Exchange "claims" there is no more.
> Sigh....
>
> Fortunately you can disable this feature. To disable this in
> Thunderbird you can go to the Advanced configuration and disable the
> following feature, by setting it to false:
> mail.server.default.fetch_by_chunks
Jeffrey,
I tried this but problem is still there.
viresh.
Hi,
Hope this helps
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=823921
Regards
Gururaja
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of viresh kumar
> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 3:08 PM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Query: Patches break with Microsoft exchange server.
>
> Hello,
>
> Mail server in ST has recently changed and now we have
> Microsoft exchange server. We are using thunderbird as mail client.
> What we observed with this server is that patch are broken
> now while sending as well as receiving. Tabs are replaced by
> spaces and may be some other too which we haven't observed.
>
> Has anybody found a solution to this kind of issues? Are
> there any workarounds possible?
>
> viresh
> ST Microelectronics.
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 11:02:44AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> If my corporate overloads told me I had to use my Exchange "messaging"
> account for external email communication, they would get a quite clear
> 'no' in response. My response may also contain suggestions that they use
> certain other objects for purposes for which they were not designed.
I'd say that if, after having been calmly explained the nature of the
trouble caused, they don't care, it's a clear demonstration of total
lack of respect of your work by deliberately breaking the tools you
need to do it. Generally it's the signal that it's time to find a more
respectful employer.
Willy