Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id WAA08641; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 22:29:15 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Mon, 1 Apr 1996 22:28:51 -0500 Received: from ng.netgate.net (root@ng.netgate.net [204.145.147.10]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id WAA08590; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 22:28:49 -0500 Received: from [205.214.160.45] (d13.netgate.net [205.214.160.45]) by ng.netgate.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA29472; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:39:37 -0800 X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <828376802.20873.0@nifty.andrew.cmu.edu> References: <199604011537.KAA09893@augusta.math.psu.edu> <19960401041245.3709.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu> <199604011537.KAA09893@augusta.math.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 18:05:46 -0800 To: Chris Newman From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: "." in phrase Cc: drums@cs.utk.edu At 8:40 AM 4/1/96, Chris Newman wrote: >I took a quick peek at RFC 733 to get a historical perspective and noticed ... >change to specials made the parsing significantly more complex. I'd >*love* to know why it was done. domain names. sigh. if you check the dates of publications, you will find that RFC822 was the first document to specify domain name syntax (before the DNS docs...) I/we thought it was quite progressive to pay attention to the emerging capability. so much for progressiveness. d/ ps. Actually, it is yet-another lesson in the dangers of specifying too much, rather than deferring what does not need to be handled. -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org