In <200410182258(_dot_)31271(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
On Mon October 18 2004 10:16, Charles Lindsey wrote:
So I have suggested a method using group-syntax that would be entirely be
compatible with the present protocols,
No, attempting to change display text into a protocol keyword is
incompatible with the text message format (both the full Standard
and the Proposed Standard), is incompatible with the Internet
Architecture and with BCP (RFC 2277), and use of named groups
is incompatible with the Standards Track Sieve protocol (RFC 3028).
It is also anglo-centric and ambiguous. All of which has been
explained, with cited references. Your claim of compatibility is
a falsehood.
The use of the group syntax <LIST:ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org;> meets the
syntax of
RFC 2822, and messages containing it should therefore pass freely through
all normal agents. It does not violate RFC 2822 in any way.
RFC 2277 is not mandatory. However, it is indeed somewhat dubious
practice to use keywords in fields not specifically designed for them.
OTOH, what CAN you use in a group-name that is not intended as an
identifier? To whom is it _meant_ to be meaningful. But the point is
taken, which is why a have admitted several times that my proposal is not
a "pretty solution"; but nobody has come up with a better one.
I see nothing of relevance in RFC 3028, unless you are telling me that
implementations of RFC 3028 cannot accept messages using group syntax at
all, which would be a pretty poor situation.
--
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