[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 27: Received clauses

2007-04-24 05:05:27
In message <462DE5E3(_dot_)2A82(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>, Frank Ellermann <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes

Pete Resnick wrote:

All of those have surrounding CFWS.

That's why 2821bis should stay away from using similar terms
like <Atom>, there are no comments and no line folding in the
envelope.  For <Mailbox> any attempt to clean it up is likely
too late, but it deserves a note in 2821bis that <Mailbox> is
syntactically very different from <mailbox>.

If we wish to distinguish between <mailbox> and <Mailbox> then we ought to use different names, not just different case. From RFC4234 ABNF:

2.1.  Rule Naming


     Rule names are case-insensitive


Paul Overell         Internet Platform Development Manager, Thus plc

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature