Re: smtpserver in 2.99.17 (possibly also earlier)

[Matti Aarnio <mea@nic.funet.fi>]

> 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. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>

	/Matti Aarnio <mea@nic.funet.fi>