Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 27: Received clauses

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
>   NOTE:
>
>      Rule names are case-insensitive

Regards

--
Paul Overell         Internet Platform Development Manager, Thus plc

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature