Re: ***SPAM-3*** Re: FWS problem

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <41C2B9FA.4A6B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>You can always convince me with this line.  But s-o-1036 says:

>| header          = start-line *continuation
>| start-line      = header-name ":" space [ nonblank-text ] eol
>[...]
>| space           = 1*( <HT (ASCII 9)> / <blank (ASCII 32)> )

>I don't see any mandatory SP in this syntax, I only see a WSP.

I think somebody reported that there was software out there that barfed on
"name: TAB body CRLF", which is why we currently insist on SP.

>Are you absolutely sure that we want to go back to the "blank"
>in 1036 ?  It's the old problem of "does RfC 2822 update 1036
>in some way ?"  IMHO a "name: 1*WSP body CRLF" is better than
>your "name: SP *WSP body CRLF".

>>> should be "name: SP *WSP header content CRLF" everywhere.

>> Maybe for our own news headers, but in some cases the syntax
>> for the [*WSP header] bit comes straight from RFC 2822, and
>> so it is not ours to change.

>Let's fix it at least for our headers, replace [FWS] by *WSP
>before and after any header content of "our" headers.

No, we can't even do that. Consider the Approved header, for example:

   approved        =  "Approved:" SP mailbox-list CRLF

You cannot reformulate that in your
    Approved: 1*WSP body CRLF
style because <mailbox-list> is defined in RFC 2822, where it is already
defined to start with '[CFWS]'. We can't do anything about that without
rewriting RFC 2822 syntax, and our Chair has forbidden that (and I think
everybody here accepts that - even draft-13 took the syntax of
mailbox-list from RFC 2822 without question).

>>> The syntax "name: SP [FWS] header content CRLF" is wrong,
>>> because "name: SP CRLF SP header content CRLF" is illegal.
> 
>> I don't think this prohibition can be made by syntax. The
>> corresponding provision in RFC 2822 (the one against empty
>> folded lines) was not made by syntax, and we are following
>> RFC 2822 wherever possible as a matter of policy.

>We're following the _intent_ of RfC 2822 whereever possible,
>but you're not forced to copy inaccurate syntax.

Yes we are, unless the RFC 2822 syntax is irretrievably broken, which it
isn't.

-- 
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      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