In <41597AD8(_dot_)5080203(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
No, I don't think that is right. An id-right, as defined by RFC 2822[...]
You have missed the critically important fact that in all cases
discussed, the relevant RFCs refer to RFC 822 (a full Standard),
not RFC 2822 (a Proposed Standard). And RFC 822 defines the
identifiers in question as containing a local-part and a domain.
It is the clear intention that RFC 2822 is to supersede RFC 822, and that
all standards that referred to RFC 822 are to be interpreted, so far as is
possible, in the light of RFC 2822.
RFC 2822 id-right is a problem because it changes the semantics.
Good! It is an improvement.
Have you heard of any cases where this change has caused a problem?
--
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