From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Thu Apr 22 2004 - 09:21:26 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <407DE8B6.1070504@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
>
>>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>
>
>>>As things stand, the header syntax defined within USEFOR always turns
>>>out to be a subset of that defined in RFC 2822.
>
>
>>Whether or not that is the case for situations where the ABNF and normative
>>text are in conflict (e.g. whether Subject is structured) depends on whether
>>one uses the ABNF or the normative text.
>
>
> If the normative text conflicts with (or, rather augments) the ABNF, then
> the normative text wins.
If there is a conflict, then the editor and the WG haven't done their jobs.
> In any case, for all of those headers which occur in both Email and
> Netnews, every such header permitted by the Usefor draft is also permitted
> by RFC 2822.
Irrelevant. The point is that conflicting definitions won't work (because
of gateways, IMAP, etc.). As noted, it is possible (as an interim measure)
to continue the restriction on RFC 822 syntax as RFCs 850 and 1036 had done
(and several of which have been obviated by deprecation of some parts of
RFC 822 syntax by RFC 2822). Claiming that a field defined as unstructured
and containing only human-readable content is instead structured and contains
some protocol information is an entirely different matter.
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################
#####
#####
#####
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################