From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 10:45:44 CDT
In <3ECF8B57.9090503@Sonietta.blilly.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> Or, in RFC
>> 2822 terms, move it to the obs syntax in the next RFC 2822 revision. Would
>> anyone notice or be inconvenienced by that?
>Yes.
>IETF-822 would surely notice, since it's their jurisdiction and not ours.
And did I ever say it wasn't their jurisdiction?
The point is that we have two protocols using broadly the same format. But
for various technical, historical and other reasons some differences have
crept it, and it would be helpful if these differences could be phased
out.
Now will someone please explain to me just why it is always assumed that,
when one of these differences comes to be resolved, it is always Netnews
that is expected to change and never Email?
>It would also lead to oddities such as a trailing space on
> Bcc:
Within Netnews, that header is already forbidden (though liberal agents
will do the best they can with it). Interestingly, the Netnews requirement
for that obligatory SP and the requirement to have some header-content on
the first line, and the requirement to have no empty headers are all
linked together. Note also that, in both Netnews and Email, there is no
semantic difference between an empty header and omitting that header
entirely.
-- 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@clerew.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