[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Revisiting RFC 2822 grammar (Subject field)

2004-01-19 05:12:40

In <40094858(_dot_)4020706(_at_)verizon(_dot_)net> Bruce Lilly 
<blilly(_at_)verizon(_dot_)net> writes:

Pete Resnick wrote:

I agree. These should be removed.

IMO, Subject should be unstructured, period.  Unfortunately, RFC 1036 
introduced two
1. "Re: " (which it got wrong!), which *requires* certain actions when 
encountered, i.e. it is
   effectively part of the syntax.  See RFC 1036 sections 2.1.4, 2.2.5.
2. "cmsg", which *requires* certain actions when encountered.  See RFC 
1035 sections 2.2.6
   and 3 (including subsections).

This is the same "Subject" field described in RFCs 822 and 2822.

Now, if an RFC 2822 successor were to repudiate those requirements 
spelled out in RFC 1036,
that would be fine.

No! If they are to be repudiated, then it is for an RFC 1036 successor to
do so. Indeed, Usefor is taking care of both of these (though the exact
form of such care is not in concrete yet).

Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web:
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, 
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5