1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. alt.privacy.anon-server

  • ping - Gabx

    From Stefan Claas@noreply@oc2mx.net to alt.privacy.anon-server on Fri Dec 19 23:06:18 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

    Hi Gabx,

    I like to test INN with my non-RFC compliant Reply-To: header
    and got this from your server: Reply-To: via@oc2mx.net, Onion@oc2mx.net, Courier@oc2mx.net,

    My original looks like this:
    Reply-To: via Onion Courier Mixnet: yeffqiea4xtcu6woyab6z6bz4oehisfuzgtmk4e277bydq25p7nha7ad.onion:8088 (Stefan Claas)
    Subject: Mal sehen II ...

    Would be nice if INN allows this.

    Best regards
    Stefan
    --
    https://oc2mx.net
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Stefan Claas@noreply@oc2mx.net to alt.privacy.anon-server on Sat Dec 20 11:36:03 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

    Stefan Claas wrote:

    Hi Gabx,

    I like to test INN with my non-RFC compliant Reply-To: header
    and got this from your server: Reply-To: via@oc2mx.net, Onion@oc2mx.net, Courier@oc2mx.net,

    My original looks like this:
    Reply-To: via Onion Courier Mixnet: yeffqiea4xtcu6woyab6z6bz4oehisfuzgtmk4e277bydq25p7nha7ad.onion:8088 (Stefan Claas)
    Subject: Mal sehen II ...

    Would be nice if INN allows this.

    Never mind, it does not work.

    Regards
    Stefan
    --
    https://oc2mx.net
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Gabx@info@tcpreset.invalid to alt.privacy.anon-server on Sat Dec 20 15:25:42 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

    Stefan Claas wrote:
    Hi Gabx,

    I like to test INN with my non-RFC compliant Reply-To: header
    and got this from your server: Reply-To:via@oc2mx.net,Onion@oc2mx.net,Courier@oc2mx.net,

    My original looks like this:
    Reply-To: via Onion Courier Mixnet: yeffqiea4xtcu6woyab6z6bz4oehisfuzgtmk4e277bydq25p7nha7ad.onion:8088 (Stefan Claas)
    Subject: Mal sehen II ...

    Would be nice if INN allows this.

    Hi Stefan,

    INN is applying strict RFC 5322 validation to the

    Reply-To header, which expects only
    valid email addresses.

    Your header contains descriptive text and an onion address, so INN's
    parser is extracting words like "via", "Onion", "Courier" and treating
    them as incomplete email addresses, then appending the server domain.

    The Reply-To header parsing is hardcoded in INN's core and follows RFC
    5322 strictly.
    AFAIK

    Best regards
    Gabx
    --
    https://yamn.virebent.art
    https://yamnweb.tcpreset.net
    https://news.tcpreset.net http://e2mjj44t3eauxra2rmrlpn7vbd6whziypccfehlrlgnnvgr6xwp5lrad.onion/ gemini://n5ry24fweklbn562o7fnyefanygtwxlgi7aevn26huuxqlsftxy5ljqd.onion/
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Stefan Claas@noreply@oc2mx.net to alt.privacy.anon-server on Sat Dec 20 16:15:31 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy.anon-server

    Gabx wrote:
    Stefan Claas wrote:
    Hi Gabx,

    I like to test INN with my non-RFC compliant Reply-To: header
    and got this from your server: Reply-To:via@oc2mx.net,Onion@oc2mx.net,Courier@oc2mx.net,

    My original looks like this:
    Reply-To: via Onion Courier Mixnet: yeffqiea4xtcu6woyab6z6bz4oehisfuzgtmk4e277bydq25p7nha7ad.onion:8088 (Stefan Claas)
    Subject: Mal sehen II ...

    Would be nice if INN allows this.

    Hi Stefan,

    INN is applying strict RFC 5322 validation to the
    Reply-To header, which expects only valid email addresses.

    Your header contains descriptive text and an onion address, so INN's
    parser is extracting words like "via", "Onion", "Courier" and treating
    them as incomplete email addresses, then appending the server domain.

    The Reply-To header parsing is hardcoded in INN's core and follows RFC
    5322 strictly.
    AFAIK

    Thanks, you are right, I figured this out too and it applies to email
    as well.

    Regards
    Stefan
    --
    https://oc2mx.net
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2