[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2822upd-04 section 1 vs. section 4.1 discrepancy

2008-01-28 10:28:15

In <fnis29$3n5$1(_at_)ger(_dot_)gmane(_dot_)org> "Frank Ellermann" 
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:

Pete Resnick wrote:

I suggest eliding the sentence in the note in section
4.1 which begins with "In the future,".

The words "in the future" clearly implied (and presumably intentionally
so) that 'Joe G. Public' was not only to be accepted, but was a deliberate
extension to RFC 822 which was to be allowed in the 'generate' syntax at
some future date, when all implementations could be presumed to have caught

Moreover, discussions on this List a few years back that this "obs-"
construct should be redescribed as an "extended-" construct confirmed that
such was how people understood those words at that time.

I just noticed that the other day myself. Happy to have
confirmation of my gut reaction to it. Will delete.


Good, IIRC this detail alone took USEFOR several weeks.

Well that was one of the changes in RFC 2822 that USEFOR took on board, by
requiring it as "accept but not generate(yet)" (as opposed to the rest of
the obs-syntax - with one other minor exception) which USEFOR does not
require to be accepted.

Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web:
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, 
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>