ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: document status: 3028bis, body, editheader

2006-03-22 12:24:57


"Mark E. Mallett" <mem(_at_)mv(_dot_)mv(_dot_)com> writes:
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:37:28PM -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
...
Section 5.7:
   The "header" test evaluates to true if the value of any of the named
   headers, ignoring leading and trailing whitespace, matches any key.

Now this brings up the question of what the "value of a header" is.  In
RFC2822-speak, it would probably really be the "field body of the named
header fields" .  "header" is used a lot in the draft to mean "header
field" so that's probably not worth going into (much as I would love to
suggest it), but the "value of a header" seems cloudy.  OTOH it's a lot
better than the current rfc3028.

Fixing the draft to not use "header" when it means "header field"
wouldn't be hard.  Ditto for aligning with 2822 on "field body".
Does anyone actually think that change would be a _bad_ thing?

Sure sounds like a good thing to me. However, the material tested by header is
not, precisely speaking, the "body of the named header field". There's also
unfolding and decoding to consider. I suppose we could say "the unfolded and
decoded body of the named header field", although it's a bit of a mouthful.

                                Ned