From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed May 21 2003 - 04:21:53 CDT
In <3EC9ABE5.9040406@Sonietta.blilly.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>Pete Resnick wrote:
>>
>> Nonsense. It is perfectly easy to comply with the
>> must-have-non-whitespace-content-on-initial-field-line rule in your
>> example:
>>
>> From: (Comment to deal with broken parsers)
>> =?Extended_UNIX_Code_Packed_Format_for_Japanese*cel-gaulish?q?a?=
>> <a@b.com>
>Sorry, no. That violates RFC 1036 section 2.1.1 and RFC 2822 section 3.4
>paragraph 3.
Whether it violates RFC 1036 or not is irrelevant. What is more to the
point is that it violates a SHOULD NOT (yet) in the last paragraph of
4.2.4 of our draft.
But it could well be argued that breaking such a SHOULD NOT is justifiable
as a workaround for bizarres cases such as this. It is unlikely that any
existing agent would fail to display that From-header. It is possible that
it might fail to parse it well enough to generate a correct reply address.
I think Pete has addressed all of your other points.
-- 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