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
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