ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Message-IDs (Was Re: Kohn draft (was RE: USEFOR: Current situation and next steps))

2003-02-24 20:56:34

Charles Lindsey wrote:

But the real nasty only came to light well after RFC 2822 was published.
Consider the following two cases:

    <"foo\bar"@baz.com>
    <"foobar"@baz.com>
    <foorbar(_at_)baz(_dot_)com>

Now read RFC 2822 VERY carefully. All those three are semantically the
same. If ever you have to ask the question "is this msg-id the same one as
that masg-id" you MUST answer Yes in the case of any pair out of those
three.

Assuming the r in the last is a typo, yes, but now we've strayed
from syntax to semantics, which is a different kettle of fish.

And how many backslashed characters did you find at all (redundant or
not)? And how many quoted strings for that matter.

I didn't count them.  I suspect there were few if any.  Nor did
I check for backslash-quoted > (which apparently would cause
trouble for some news software).




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>