On Mon January 31 2005 16:27, Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <200501281744(_dot_)43383(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
On Fri January 28 2005 11:07, Charles Lindsey wrote:
1. Is it really necessary to modify RFC 822 and well as RFC 2822?
Yes.
Why?
RFC 2026.
As clearly stated in the "Scope" section on RFC 2822, the "Internet
Message Format" applies first and foremost to "electronic mail".
That is not what RFC 2822 says; it speaks of a "framework", using
language that has remained unchanged from RFC 822, RFC 733, etc.,
several of which predate adoption of the message format by other
RFCs (e.g. 850).
That is certainly possible via a number of existing mechanisms
(From field with an "effective and useful for replies" [RFC 2821
section 3.8.4] mailbox, a standard Comments or Organization (for
Usenet specifically) field w/o a mailbox, or indication in the
body of the message), or an extension field which is not an
address field could be defined.
Very droll. I presume those are not intended to be serious suggestions.
RFC 2821 is part of the core Internet protocol suite, and
its section 3.8.4 requirements are indeed serious.
But can you
point to some realistic scenario (or, better, some actual MUA) in which
something might actually break if such a modified header were to arrive at
an agent?
See RFC 2821 section 3.8.4.
Of course, one
successful experiment does not prove very much.
To be precise, it proves nothing of consequence.