On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Tim Showalter wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Chris Newman wrote:
Section 2.5.2.
Also a useful section. Need to add comments about how to RFC 822 quoting
of addresses is dealt with. Remember that junk like:
<"foo" . "bar"@baz.biff>
is a legal RFC 822 address, but for comparison one probably wants to treat
it as <foo(_dot_)bar(_at_)baz(_dot_)biff>
I'm not sure about this. While a comparison in addresses should make them
the same, a comparision of From headers might treat them differently. In
the document as it stands, there are no direct comparisons of addresses. At
least, I didn't intend any.
Sorry, I was looking at notes on my document that I wrote as I
read it. Comparison isn't so big a deal actually. More important is the
addresses allowed in commands like "forward". The problem is that 822
syntax is different from 821 syntax. It also includes a lot of
syntactical junk that's completely unnecessary. If we want to make this
easy for implementors, I think we should require addresses in some
canonical form.
Choice 1:
Addresses must meet both 821 and 822 quoting rules. Specifically, it's
either <local-part(_at_)domain> or <"local-part"@domain>. Quotes around
name-components, whitespace and embedded comments should be disallowed.
Choice 2:
Address must be in unquoted form. This means you have just
<local-part(_at_)domain>. To convert to quoted form, one looks for the
rightmost "@" sign and has to quote the local-part if it contains any
specials other than "." (e.g. "@" is particularly nasty in local part).