[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC2821bis-02 Issue 27: Received clauses

2007-04-24 09:06:14

Paul Overell wrote:

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

"Different case" is the state of the art in 2821 for this term
and <Atom>.  A different name would be nice, but what about the
existing references in other RFCs to <Mailbox> ?  That's why I
wrote "likely too late".

| Rule names are case-insensitive

Sure, as seen for 2821bis <domain> and 2821bis <Domain>, not to
be confused with a 2822 <domain>.  It's not directly possible
to mix the RFC 2821 and 2822 ABNF.

For <Atom> it's very simple, we can just say 1*atext in the few
places where it's used.  Rewriting the 2821bis ABNF in a way
that allows to add the complete 2822 ABNF would be a pain, what
about <domain>, <mailbox>, <path>, <local-part>, and so on ?

And while the syntax differs the semantics is almost identical.