Re: Making secret SMTP changes

[kankkune@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Risto Kankkunen)]

>   Unfortunately, the present RFC821 implies, in essence, the present
> RFC822.  If significant changes are made in RFC822 to add new fields
> with specific meaning and then to incorporate structure or "odd things"
> in messages, then something, somewhere, will break.

What would break?

> Now, I wish we could do the second without modifying RFC821-- by
> assuming that we can design some set of fields or conventions into
> RFC822 that won't break something, somewhere.  But the only way to do
> that would be to use some form that is prohibited in the RFC822 text
> today.  RFC822 prohibits very little, although one might seek syntax
> characteristics that would cause any existing RFC822 handler (UA or
> otherwise) to reject the message unless it understood it.

I don't understand this reasoning. I think using prohibited syntax would
break things, not following the current RFC822. What breaks, when people
use Content-type or Encoding headers?


-- 
 Risto Kankkunen                   kankkune@cs.Helsinki.FI (Internet)
 Department of Computer Science    kankkunen@finuh          (Bitnet)
 University of Helsinki, Finland   ..!mcsun!uhecs!kankkune   (UUCP)