Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id CAA17046; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 02:44:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Sun, 25 Feb 2001 02:36:22 -0500 Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id CAA15636; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 02:36:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns.fmi.fi (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id CAA15622; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 02:36:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns.fmi.fi (193.166.211.11 -> ns.fmi.fi) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Sun, 25 Feb 2001 02:36:18 -0500 Received: by ns.fmi.fi id JAA206920; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 09:36:12 +0200 (EET) Received: (Stripped) by ns.fmi.fi (with) id 20010225/JAA206920/000; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 09:34:09 +0200 Sender: hurtta@leija.mh.fmi.fi From: hurtta+zz@leija.mh.fmi.fi To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: [comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.headers] Re: RFC Conflict and Header Info Date: 25 Feb 2001 09:34:09 +0200 Message-ID: <5d4rxjrzbi.fsf@leija.fmi.fi> Lines: 107 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.6 List-Unsubscribe: ------- Start of forwarded message ------- From: Kari Hurtta 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: <5dwvag9qmq.fsf@leija.fmi.fi> References: <4uvh6.22654$65.112743@newsfeeds.bigpond.com> <96ajql$9og$1@news.panix.com> <5d3dd4i8ck.fsf@leija.fmi.fi> Kari Hurtta writes in comp.mail.misc: > "David Raisey" 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 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 -------