[Top] [All Lists]

"for" clause on Received: header field (Re: General-Address-Literal (was: Issue list))

2007-04-29 23:35:29

Frank Ellermann <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes in 

John C Klensin wrote:

Kari  (2007-04-20): "for" clause on Received: header field
As far as Pete and I are concerned, this has been resolved 
by further stripping the Received line syntax from 2822.

Okay, I had Kari's article still on "read again". and didn't
look if 2821upd already did something with this issue.  

Yes. I asked:

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

But perhaps implementation and interoperability report

Previous standards (RFC 821, 822) did not allowed several 
addresses, so is these multiple mailboxes on "for" clause 
never implemented?

Multiple mailboxes was new feature on RFC 2821, 2822.

Just wondering :-)

Syntax error what I noted on 
subject "draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-03.txt: For -rule"
Klensin said that it is now fixed.

draft-resnick-2822upd-01.txt does now

   received        =       "Received:" *received-token ";" date-time CRLF

   received-token  =       word / angle-addr / addr-spec / domain

So there is no conflict between draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
and draft-resnick-2822upd.  (EAI WG probably needs (and
probaly not need) catch up this, but that does not belong 
to here. )

/ Kari Hurtta

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>