On Wed October 13 2004 07:51, Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <416C6820(_dot_)9010002(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <416B2775(_dot_)1020507(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
If it never actually happens in the Real World (TM), then it is not a real
situation. It is merely an interesting quirk of the way RFC 2822 was
written.
Such comparisons do in fact occur. Jacob's message which started
this discussion was in fact based on exactly that type of
comparison scenario.
No, Jacob's message made no mention of any comparison which HAD occurred
(and failed). It was purely concerned with a discrepancy between two RFCs,
and an implementor who wanted to do the "right thing".
... with respect to comparisons; "comparing" and "comparison"
are specifically mentioned in Jacob's original message. Incidentally,
a "scenario" does not necessarily refer to a specific actual
event; consult a dictionary.
I have in fact mentioned transcription of various types.
You have mentioned transcriptions which MIGHT occur. You mentioned no
examples which HAD occurred, nor any current software which could cause
them to occur.
Software is not the only source of transcriptions, as I have
mentioned at length.
I would add that you have failed to provide any concrete example
of specific software which generates identifiers referring to
multiple distinct entities which are identical on the LHS and differ
only in case in the RHS.
I am aware of no such software, and doubt that any such software exists.
Ergo you know of no reason to deviate from the
long-standing (*decades*) rule that an identifier RHS is a
case-insensitive domain name.
Presumably it makes no specification because it was not considered
relevant.
Pure conjecture.
In fact RFC 2822 make no mention of comparison of message
identifiers because such comparison does not arise in the course of any
process that it envisages.
RFC 2822 is not the sole RFC; its scope is the Internet Message
Format. The RFCs specifically mentioned in my response to
Jacob's query do mention comparisons. RFC 2822 does
specifically mention domain names, and the relevant Standards
for domain names (referenced by RFC 2822) do specify
case-independence.
AFAICS, the only situation where it considers
processes involving message identifiers is when it gives instructions for
constructing a References field from the Message-ID field of some
presursor, and the instruction is to take the "contents" of that field
which means, in the absence of wording permitting otherwise, without
changing the case of anything.
Which might or might not have already been changed by that time.
Likewise I would suppose (I have not checked in detail) that RFC 2821
gives no authority for changing the Message-ID field in any way during
transit.
You should have checked; as usual your supposition is dead
wrong. RFC 2821 specifically mentions gateways. Gateways
may transform from Internet Text Message format to/from
some other environment; a cycle through such an environment
(e.g. X.400) may well result in case changes in the domain.
Thus there seems no circumstance in which a message identifier, once
generated, can legitimately be changed subsequently,
Wrong on several counts -- incorrect premise.
in which case it
makes not a blind bit of difference whether any comparison is
case-sensitive or otherwise.
One cannot draw conclusions of any value from an incorrect
premise.
... And the defect in the RFC 2822 specification
needs to be corrected consistent with long-standing use, viz.
by reaffirming that an identifier RHS is to be interpreted as
a case-insensitive domain name.
If there is nothing broke,
Another incorrect premise.