Subject: [comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.headers] Re: RFC Conflict and Header Info

From: [email-masked]
Date: 25 Feb 2001 09:34:09 +0200

------- Start of forwarded message -------
From: Kari Hurtta <[email-masked]>
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: RFC Conflict and Header Info
Date: 24 Feb 2001 15:06:53 +0200
Organization: Ye 'Ol Disorganized NNTPCache groupie
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>

Kari Hurtta <[email-masked]> writes in comp.mail.misc:

> "David Raisey" <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > I don't believe a standard is any good unless it is followed completely.
> > Now that is not to say that the standard shouldn't change.  Standards must
> > be modified to allow for changes in intent, technology and numerous other
> > considerations.  However, if a standard is no longer desirable as in the
> > format of received headers then surely the standard should be rewritten to
> > relax the guidelines as required.
> 
> Well, there are rewriting. See IETF Working Group: 
> 	Detailed Revision/Update of Message Standards (drums)
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/drums-charter.html
> 
> There is following documents.
> 
> Internet-Drafts:
> 
>    Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (187222 bytes)
> 	http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-13.txt
> 
>    Internet Message Format (96560 bytes)
> 	http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-09.txt

Returning of subject of that thread:

It is funny that working group is managed to make conflict again.
:-)

That what 
	http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-13.txt

suggest to be added to to Received: -line, should be subset of what

	http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-09.txt

allows to to be included to Received: -line. Actually that is not true :-)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-09.txt allows:

received        =       "Received:" name-val-list ";" date-time CRLF

name-val-list   =       [CFWS] [name-val-pair *(CFWS name-val-pair)]

name-val-pair   =       item-name CFWS item-value

item-name       =       ALPHA *(["-"] (ALPHA / DIGIT))

item-value      =       addr-spec / atom / domain / msg-id

that is almost any name value pair (but only almost.) 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-13.txt

says:

   Time-stamp-line = "Received:" FWS Stamp <CRLF>

   Stamp = From-domain By-domain Opt-info ";"  FWS date-time
 
   Opt-info = [Via] [With] [ID] [For]
 
   For = "FOR" FWS 1*( Path / Mailbox ) CFWS
 
Conflict is here. In other words

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-13.txt

suggest that "for" clause can include several addresses.
However

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-09.txt

does not allow that:

name-val-pair   =       item-name CFWS item-value

item-name       =       ALPHA *(["-"] (ALPHA / DIGIT))

item-value      =       addr-spec / atom / domain / msg-id

:-)

-- 
          /"\                           |  Kari 
          \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign |    Hurtta
           X      Against HTML Mail     |
          / \                           |
------- End of forwarded message -------