[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Transparency

2006-05-17 05:29:15
At 20:43 16/05/2006, Tulsi Ram Mayala wrote:
The question is not about the difficulty/ease of implementation. It is about defining exact inverse operation and RFC should define it correctly.

Yes a sender sending a single dot is buggy.

But a receiver not removing a dot in case of a single dot should not be called buggy.

Why? It simply doesn't do what RFC 2821 says it should do - ie, it's not SMTP compliant if it doesn't remove a leading dot.

Maybe a better way to put it is it can throw an error ("Invalid data input" or something else).

It probably could if it wanted to, but silently not removing the dot is a bug AFAICS.

I can't see any reason to consider a change to RFC 2821 here. It's pretty clear, not self-contradictory, and not a problem to implement.

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