I noted an error in a RFC and I would like to report that error and, I hope, to see an Errata issued.
Does anyone know how to officially report an error to the IETF Working Group. Is there a sort of bug/typo tracking at the IETF?
I tried to send an email to the author of the RFC, but I have not received any answer and I am not sure my email has been taken into account.
You can report an errata :
The RFC Editor database maintains a list of errata for each RFC. To
search for errata on a particular RFC, or to report new errata, please
visit the RFC Editor Errata Page.
https://www.ietf.org/rfc.html
Related
enter image description hereI've installed all httptoolkit-server and also the httptoolkit-ui to capture data and mock it up, i've installed mockrt,mockttp,docker,... plugin's too but i cant see "WebRTC data channel" in the match section like the image below
(picture is from httptoolkit blog : https://httptoolkit.tech/blog/developer-tools-decentralized-web/
how can i capture and mock RTC connection's in httptoolkit as it shown ?
I'm the developer of HTTP Toolkit. The feature you're looking for does not exist yet.
That blog post is just a proposal and an announcement of funding, and the screenshot is only an example mockup of the future UI.
This will be available within the new few months (keep an eye on that blog and the mailing list for updates) but it's not available today.
(I think you also emailed me earlier asking about this, and I replied there - feel free to respond by email if you want to discuss this further).
I remember some blog saying that response header Content-Disposition may cause security threats and the user's privacy is vulnerable. I also remember it stating that the header is not part of the HTTP Specs but I just can not find the blog or any proper article that why it is said so?
Please provide a simple code example to demo the same.
Content-Disposition is an HTTP header field; consult the IANA header field registry for the RFC definining it (and, hint: that RFC contains a section called "Security Considerations").
I've encountered a bug with the google.com:RecipientToEmailExtractor extractor. When receiving an email from an address looking like a.b.cdef#gmail.com (1 letter followed by 1 period), the extracted address I get is abcdef#gmail.com. The periods are removed. ab.cd.ef#gmail.com has no issues and extracts the correct address.
And the issue is only with the To address. From and CC extractors are ok.
Is there a way to correct this?
Also, since I couldn't find the proper channel to report this issue (no Google Group or issues page), where can I submit a bug report?
Google found me a link for GAS bugs: https://code.google.com/p/google-apps-script-issues/issues/list
Short-term you could write a function to always remove dots from addresses before comparing. Here's a suggestion from StackOverflow using regex: Filtering periods out of email addresses with regex You might want to consider that "+" can be used, too. See Looking for a regex to match a gmail plus address
As for the proper channel, I recall (but can't find the info now) that the Google Group for GAS at one time specified that questions should be asked in Stack Overflow. I had posted a few GAS questions in Web Apps and asked them to be migrated here for that reason.
I'm currently coding, as the part of a bigger project, a webmail client.
I'd just need a quick reference and/or pointer towards the right direction about POP3 messages, as I'll have to parse them.
I don't want to use available libraries for this. I just need to know if there is something I can read to understand what to expect in a message.
Thanks!
[Precision Edit:] I'm really talking about a single message's syntax, here. There are "From" fields, and "To" fields, and many other fields, like Mime-Type and stuff, and I want to know if there is a doc somewhere that specifies what is sent back on a successful RETR command.
[Addendum] One might want to look up RFC 822 in addition to RFC 1939.
The RFC is here
And here's a java tutorial on the subject.
Authorize.net offers a "Silent POST" feature for their Automated Recurring Billing. It's supposed to POST data to a url of your choosing, telling you whether they were able to charge the customer, how much, etc. The problem is, it isn't very well documented.
Is there any way to test a post to that URL? I've signed up for a developer account, but there's no way to specify that URL like you could in the actual system. Hence, there doesn't seem to be a way to test it out.
If not, is there a list of possible values it could return? It appears to send x_first_name, x_amount - I've seen code that uses those values - but since I can't actually get it to send a response, I'm not sure.
Is there documentation for this feature anywhere? Or even class that implements it fully?
Better late then never: All About Authorize.Net’s Silent Post
I have not seen much on it only for AIM and SIM, you might just give them a call.
Log in to your Authorize.Net order processing account, and click on the Settings link (under ACCOUNT, in the left column). Then click on the "Silent Post URL" link in the Transaction Format Settings area. You can enter your silent post URL on the next page. The next page also contains a link to the documentation explaining the technical details. HTH
Here's a few more (somewhat) useful posts I found on the subject.
Merchant Account Services - gives some limited sample code (PHP)
Experts Exchange - lists a few helpful variables, gives an idea of what's being sent (ASP).
You still have to call your account rep for them to activate Silent Post URL with your account because that is not something that is enabled automatically
Our clients use the following tool to test silent post url requests sent from the Authorize.Net gateway.
Simply add the following url to your silent post settings and change the email address for the results to be delivered to an email of choice.
URL:
http://www.silentposturl.com/action/email/index.php?support#silentposturl.com