Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id SAA28820; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 18:21:09 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Mon, 11 Mar 1996 18:20:18 -0500 Received: from po10.andrew.cmu.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id SAA28692; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 18:20:11 -0500 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po10.andrew.cmu.edu (8.7.4/8.7.1) id SAA01048 for drums@cs.utk.edu; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 18:19:59 -0500 Received: via switchmail; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 18:19:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 18:19:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 18:19:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from BatMail.robin.v2.14.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c.411 via MS.5.6.hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c_411; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 18:19:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 18:19:04 -0500 (EST) From: John Gardiner Myers To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Free insertion of linear-white-space In-Reply-To: References: Mark Crispin writes: > > Existing > > implementations don't generate whitespace between the field-name and > > colon and many existing implementations can't handle whitespace > > between the field-name and colon. > > I've encountered such implementations. I don't think you can say it never > happens, just that it is rare. > > I have no problem with banning this practice; however, it should be of the > form "don't do it, but you should parse it if you see it". I have an IMAP/POP server, non-trivial deployment, that bounces messages if there is whitespace or comments between the field-name and colon. Similarly, munpack considers such lines invalid header syntax and treats them as if they started the body. To date, I have received zero problem reports about this. Requiring all implementations to parse this kind of stuff has a non-trivial cost in terms of complexity. In some of these cases, the cost far outweighs the benefit gained. We are engineers--we have to evaluate the relative costs and make appropriate trade-offs. Keith Moore writes: > > > This is an (unmentioned) incompatible change in syntax which would > > > outlaw "this".is."legal".under."RFC822" > > I've certainly used this syntax before when mapping DECnet mail addresses to > RFC822. I changed to use the percent-hack when I found that one or two SMTP > servers wouldn't accept it in a RCPT command. Looks like you ran into the exact problem I was trying to fix. The above local-part, while legal in 822, is *not* legal in 821. Requiring 822bis parsers to handle that syntax will necessarily require a large number of them to *convert* such addresses into legal 821 syntax. This has a relatively high cost. -- _.John G. Myers Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU LoseNet: ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up