Date: 7 Mar 1996 23:33:01 GMT
Message-ID: <19960307233301.19938.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>
From: djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Message format document outline

> If "choking" on the message simply means "crashing and burning or failing
> with some sort of error code", I agree that this should not occur.

I meant something stronger: An 822bis parser should properly parse any
valid 822 message.

In fact, I propose that this be an explicit requirement for DRUMS.
822bis should be free to resolve ambiguities, and to say that lots of
valid 822 messages must not or should not be generated, but _every_
unambiguously valid 822 message must have the same meaning in 822bis.

The reason, again, is that mail messages stick around forever.

Reactions?

> According to the rule as you have it written, we would be
> *required* to interpret these as continuations,

Yes, just as you're required to do so under 822.

Apparently you feel okay violating the 822 rule. So why would you have
a problem violating the same rule in 822bis?

---Dan