From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Feb 14 2003 - 05:12:14 CST
In <3E4BCC7B.4030908@Sonietta.blilly.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> 4.7.3.6. RFC 987 backwards compatibility
>>
>> The mapping defined here is different to that used in RFC 987, as the
>> RFC 987 mapping lead to changed message IDs in many cases. Fixing
>> the problems is preferable to retaining backwards compatibility. An
>> implementation of this standard may recognise message IDs generated
>> by RFC 987. This is not recommended.
>>
>> Which is also an example of where "backwards compatibility" (in my sense
>> of the term)
>No, "retaining backwards compatbility" in this instance means
>that the installed infrastructure would continue to be
>considered compliant with the new standard, which is exactly
>the same meaning of "backwards compaibility" used in other
>contexts.
No, he is saying that if an implementation of RFC 987 produces a message
ID in the now deprecated style, it may not be recognized by a strict
implementation of RFC 2156. That is a breech of backwards compatibility in
the sense in which I use the term.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5