On May 11, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/11/2011 2:04 PM, SM wrote:
At 13:15 11-05-2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
<atext> seems to be an undefined rule in RFC 5321.
This is being noticed in a couple of different fora, so it's worth
It is mentioned in a message to YAM (
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00542.html ) and also on
yup. it /is/ showing up as an issue in multiple venues.
this mailing list. There was a reply (
that notes suggests:
I believe that
there is a statement that any productions that cannot be found
are defined either in the base ABNF spec or in 5322.
But I can find no such 'default' statement in 5322 (or 2821).
5321 4.1.2 says, immediately prior to the only mention of atext:
Terminals not defined in
this document, such as ALPHA, DIGIT, SP, CR, LF, CRLF, are as defined
in the "core" syntax in Section 6 of RFC 5234  or in the message
format syntax in RFC 5322 .
5322 defines atext in section 3.2.3.