[Raw Msg Headers][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: smtpserver in 2.99.17 (possibly also earlier)



[ On Fri, October  6, 1995 at 10:32:14 (-0700), Tom Samplonius wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: smtpserver in 2.99.17 (possibly also earlier)
>
>   It is?  Perhaps, I'm just confused about the BNF grammar in RFC 821, 
> but I see:
> 
> <mailbox> ::= <local-part> "@" <domain>
> 
> <local-part> ::= <dot-string> | <quoted-string>
> 
> <dot-string> ::= <string> | <string> "." <dot-string>
> 
> <quoted-string> ::= """ <qtext> """
> 
>   This would seem to indicate that '"' must surround the entire <local-part>

Perhaps there's some confusion between 821 and 822, the latter which says:

	local-part = word *("." word)
	word = atom / quoted-string
	quoted-string = <"> *(qtext/quoted-pair) <">
	qtext = <any CHAR excepting <">, "\" & CR, and including linear-white-space>
	quoted-pair = "\" CHAR
	atom = 1*<any CHAR except specials, SPACE and CTLs>
	specials = "(" / ")" / "<" / ">" / "@" / "," / ";" / ":" / "\" / <"> / "." / "[" / "]"

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?

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 443-1734			VE3TCP			robohack!woods
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>