[Top] [All Lists]

"for" clause on Received: header field (Re: rfc2821bis-02 is out)

2007-04-22 10:42:48

The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gmane.ietf.smtp as well.

Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> writes:

The new draft can be found at your usual suspect locations, including

A side-by-side diff from rfc2821bis-01 can be seen at this URL:

Remember, if you want to discuss an issue with the draft, please use
separate messages for each issue.

Also, please look at the open issues I pointed out in my recent posts.

      Tony Hansen

For -clause on Received: allows some syntax which is not allowed
on RFC 2822:

 For            = CFWS "FOR" 1*( FWS Path / Mailbox ))

Compare to RFC 2822:

item-value      =       1*angle-addr / addr-spec /
                         atom / domain / msg-id

( that may also considered to be bug of RFC 2822 )

Is multiple mailboxes ever used on "for" -clause ?
Syntax for it is quite inconsistent between standards.

/ Kari Hurtta

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • rfc2821bis-02 is out, Tony Hansen
    • "for" clause on Received: header field (Re: rfc2821bis-02 is out), Kari Hurtta <=