Message-ID: <YlF7Csm00WBwQ12PAf@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:40:56 -0500 (EST)
From: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Message format document outline
In-Reply-To: <oO1PbDAPYBQxQAwG@turnpike.com>
References: <oO1PbDAPYBQxQAwG@turnpike.com>

Paul Overell <paulo@turnpike.com> writes:
> The RFC822 syntax of the Received: field was modified by RFC1123 5.2.8
> but it unfortunately failed to give ABNF for its modifications.

I missed this and will correct it.

> suggestion: "for" 1#mailbox

Inserting the envelope addresses into the message when there are more
than one of them is a privacy violation.  The "for" clause should only
be inserted when there is exactly one envelope forward address.

> This is an (unmentioned) incompatible change in syntax which would
> outlaw  "this".is."legal".under."RFC822"
> 
> Why the incompatible change?

This local-part syntax is almost never (if not never) generated and
frequently unimplemented in existing parsers.  It is also not
permitted by the 821 local-part syntax.  Removing it simplifies things
considerably.

At least three times, when I have mentioned DRUMS to an e-mail
implementor, the first thing they ask is whether this particular
syntax is being removed.

Granted, I need to explicitly document the change.

> By all means deprecate the use of particular obsolete syntaxes (e.g.
> non-numeric timezones or multiple quoted strings in local-parts) but
> please don't outlaw existing legal messages.

It would help greatly if you could demonstrate existence of such
constructs.

-- 
_.John G. Myers		Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU
			LoseNet:  ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up