From: Clive D.W. Feather (clive@demon.net)
Date: Tue Apr 17 2001 - 03:44:51 CDT
Erland Sommarskog said:
> The closest to an answer I get is is section 4.2.2:
>
> When a header is defined, in this (or any future) standard, as having
> one (or possibly more) of these properties, it is subject to special
> treatment, as indicated below.
>
> This implies that this locally-defined header is not a Local Header,
> unless they produce an RFC which defines it as such.
We invented the term "local header" to describe a header that has a specific
set of properties, so that we didn't need to repeat those properties in N
places, possibly in N ways. We did the same with (IIRC) three other sets of
properties that we expected to happen in several places in the draft.
I don't think you have to use an RFC to define something as a Local Header.
You could say that your software is conformant to "RFC-whatever-we-end-up-as
modified by Erland's Specification Number 42".
> I have to admit that slept over Charles's response, but of course it doesn't
> make sense to claim that any text at the bottom of an article is a signature
> and then require it to be delimited in some way.
I don't think it claims that. On the other hand, since all possible text is
valid, perhaps we need to reword it as "if you see this sequence, the text
following is called 'a signature' and you should treat it like so ...".
-- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 Internet Expert | Home: <clive@davros.org> | Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | DFax: +44 20 8371 4037 Thus plc | | Mobile: +44 7973 377646