In <4007E778(_dot_)1080204(_at_)verizon(_dot_)net> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)verizon(_dot_)net> writes:
Further note that this is obs-syntax, which is not for generation of new
messages.
Also note that ASCII NUL is included in obs-char.
Note also that NULs and naked CR and LF in headers will not be transported
correctly by many transports, and there is nothing corresponding to CTE
Q-P to tunnel them through as there is in the case of bodies.
Which also raises the issue of which parts of the obs-syntax are there
because there exist (or once existed) agents that routinely generated such
things, and which parts are there because they were strictly legal under
RFC 822, but nobody ever actually generated them (except those
participating in obfuscated header contests)?
I have this feeling that we are requiring agents to recognize obs-
features that have never ever been seen in the wild.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave,
CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5