[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Strict RFC x821/x822 Checking

2005-07-01 03:20:16

I am following the discussion about  the :sp< discussion
And i am wondering is it not better to just to allow it in 2821bis

RFC x822 requires an space behind the ":" and
RFC x821 doesn't allow it.

Is there an easier recipe to get confused?

You can even find in RFC 2821 reasons why there should be a space behind the ":"

4.1.1 Command Semantics and Syntax

The SMTP commands define the mail transfer or the mail system
function requested by the user.  SMTP commands are character strings
terminated by <CRLF>.  The commands themselves are alphabetic
characters terminated by <SP> if parameters follow and <CRLF>
otherwise.  (In the interest of improved interoperability, SMTP
receivers are encouraged to tolerate trailing white space before the
terminating <CRLF>.)  The syntax of the local part of a mailbox must
conform to receiver site conventions and the syntax specified in
section 4.1.2.  The SMTP commands are discussed below.  The SMTP
replies are discussed in section 4.2.

Isn't something within the "< >" an parameter???
or are ":" "<" and ">" alphabetic characters
I find it all a bit against the Internet grain, to refuse spaces here.

Other RFc2821bis question.

I find RFC 2821 is very strict in error codes, (This refers especially to 
Section 4.3.2, wich names all possible errorcodes per command)

Should the new RFC allow more errorcodes or not?

In favor of more errorcodes:
Intelligent clients can work with it more precise

In favor to keep it as it is:
Simple clients doesn't need upgrading

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