In section 2, since when did RFC 2119 define "CAN"?
Wierd. I'll replace it with "REQUIRED", which is used and should be on the
list.
Do the references to SMTP MAIL FROM require at least an informative
reference to RFC 2821?
Probably not required, but it doesn't hurt to add it.
Section 4.3 requires support for RFC 2047 encoding of the subject;
should that same requirement be placed on any phrase portion of the
from?
Right now the text says you have to construct something that's a syntactically
valid mailbox-list, which would preclude any 8bit material. I'm reluctant to
change that since it gets into the issue of exactly how you take structured
header content that contains 8bit and convert it to something legal. This is
very different than converting text to stuff into an unstructured header and
not specified anywhere AFAIK. I really don't think this document is the place
to get into it.
An example using the :mime parameter would be nice. How about:
require "vacation";
vacation :mime text:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=foo
--foo
I'm at the beach relaxing. Mmmm, surf...
--foo
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd";>
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>How to relax</TITLE>
<BASE HREF="http://home.example.com/pictures/";></HEAD>
<BODY><P>I'm at the <A HREF="beach.gif">beach</A> relaxing.
Mmmm, <A HREF="ocean.gif">surf</A>...
</BODY></HTML>
--foo--
.
Why not? Added.
In section 5, there's a space missing between the RFC3461 reference and
the next word, "is".
Fixed.
Ned