[Raw Msg Headers][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: smtpserver in 2.99.17 (possibly also earlier)
> Perhaps there's some confusion between 821 and 822, the latter which says:
> So, an RFC-822 address would allow:
> > > "Nicholas Briggs".PARC@Xerox.COM
> but RFC-821 appears not to.
> YUCK! 822 makes sense and seems more complete to me....
> Has any RFC since ammended 821 to follow 822's syntax? Should it? If
> not, does this mean mailers have to be careful to re-quote addresses?
Some amandaments have been made, for example "!" and "%"
in the addresses were illegal w/o 1123 saying they are ok.
("%-hack", section 5.2.16 -- umm.. nothing definite about
amending 821, only talking about 822 syntax changes..)
In cases where 822 makes sense in 821s context, I guess
it could be followed.
... Hmm.. Apparently I have to go and build my own RFC
mirror magic, the one I have been using is lacking behind
seriously.. Only RFC 1814 in it, and they are in 1870+..
> Greg A. Woods
> +1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP robohack!woods
> Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>
/Matti Aarnio <email@example.com>