Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA10257; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:17:35 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:17:03 -0500 Received: from Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA10177; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:16:53 -0500 Received: from UW-Gateway.Panda.COM by Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (NX5.67f2/UW-NDC Revision: 2.27.MRC ) id AA24374; Mon, 11 Mar 96 12:16:21 -0800 Received: from localhost by Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM (NX5.67e/UW-NDC/Panda Revision: 2.27.MRC ) id AA29248; Mon, 11 Mar 96 12:16:10 -0800 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:09:13 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Crispin Sender: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space To: Robert Elz Cc: John Gardiner Myers , drums@cs.utk.edu In-Reply-To: <23978.826572540@munnari.OZ.AU> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue, 12 Mar 1996 06:29:00 +1100, Robert Elz wrote: > All rules must come from elsewhere - that could be the hostname > rules (rfc952) which really is obsolete now, or from 822, or > someplace else (section 2.1 of rfc1123 perhaps). This is, of course, what I was referring to. I don't think that 822 level documents should be applying such rules -- that creates 69 different things that need to be changed when the rules change. Make 822bis as flexible as possible, and let some other document restrict the scope. > Note that 1123 says > (if interpreted the way it seems to be written) that user@10.1.2.3 > SHOULD be acceptable - where we all know that it isn't, and we > most certainly don't want it to be. It means a host with name 10.1.2.3, doesn't it? As long as no top-level domains of 3, etc. are ever registered, this should not be a problem in actual practice. > In any case, deleting . (at least) from specials was rejected, > not because of what it mighth permit in the domain, but because > of what it would permit in the local part (where there are > certainly no other rules that can apply). IMHO, this is an extremely bad excuse. What right (other than 822's unfortunate precedent) do we have for restricting the use of "." in the local-part? I argued this with Dave 15 years ago, and never got a satisfactory answer (the actual reason is that once upon a time "." was going to be used as a soft-@ for routing). Remove "." from specials, and if you insist have a "SHOULD NOT" for leading or trailing "." in local-part. Once you do this, incredible amounts of complexity start collapsing.