In <415BFA94(_dot_)3010103(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
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.
No, on all counts. RFC 2822 itself does not supersede RFC 822; at the
earliest, the successor of its successor might be a full Standard which
would supersede RFC 822. Standards that specifically refer to RFC 822
must be interpreted in terms of RFC 822; EBNF differs from ABNF, etc.
Is that the general understanding of others on this list? That we follow
RFC 2822 in some places/headers and follow RFC 822 in others?
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?
I have mentioned specific issues where RFC 2822 causes problems.
But you have not answered the question. We were discussing the <id-right>
in <msg-id>s. Have you heard of any case where this esoteric change of
semantics actually 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