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.
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