Subject: Re: smtpupd-12: <SP> optional in replies?

From: Eric Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 07:13:08 -0700

I agree that we should go with the ABNF.

eric

============= In Reply To: ===========================================
: From:  Gregory Neil Shapiro <[email-masked]>
: Subject:  smtpupd-12: <SP> optional in replies?
: Date:  Sun, 30 Jul 2000 21:43:29 -0700 (PDT)

: Section 4.2.1 states, "In many cases the SMTP client then simply needs to
: search for the reply code followed by <SP> at the beginning of a line."
: 
: Earlier in section 4.2, the document claims the <SP> part of the text
: portion of the reply and is therefore optional (the ABNF backs up this
: fact).  The quoted text from 4.2.1 conflicts with this.

---

From: Philip Hazel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:20:08 +0100 (BST)

> I agree that we should go with the ABNF.

So do I.

Philip

-- 
Philip Hazel            University of Cambridge Computing Service,
[email-masked]      Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:12:47 -0400

> I agree that we should go with the ABNF.

I concur.