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

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <41C77B78.6EBD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Charles Lindsey wrote:
> 
>>|         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]'.

>If you're free to replace [CFWS} by [FWS] because we don't want
>comments, then you're also free to replace [CFWS] by *WSP where
>both 2822 and we don't want a CRLF.  RfC 2822 didn't bother to
>get the sytax right, they only mentioned it in the text:

If you start to tinker with the RFC 2822 syntax to that extent, then you
will find that there is a considerable amount of it which would have to be
changed, and I think that is way beyond our remit. Hopefully the RFC 2822
situation can be improved if/when RFC 2822 comes up for revision, but we
have to work with it as it is.


>> We can't do anything about that without rewriting RFC 2822
>> syntax, and our Chair has forbidden that

>IIRC Alexej only said that whatever we do, the result must be
>a valid message/rfc822 as defined in 2822.  But not all valid
>message/rfc822 are also valid news articles.  If we have some
>restrictions, and that's the case, then it's perfectly okay to
>have a proper syntax reflecting these restrictions.

Well if Alexey were to say we could make these changes, then that would be
a different matter. But as it stands, with these particular cases covered
by verbiage, both in RFC 2822 and in USEFOR, nothing is actually broken
(apart from the definition of "header content", which needs to be worked
on).

>For those who don't get the idea by looking at the ABNF there
>is still the text with explicit MUSTs:  The header content of
>all header lines MUST contain a non-witespace (=> obs-FWS RIP).

>Back to your example:

>| mailbox-list = (mailbox *("," mailbox))

>BTW, please add the sytax again, as it was in old drafts, you
>probably don't want the obs-mbox-list in RfC 2822.

No, that is OK. USEFOR already says that we take only the syntax from
section 3 of RFC 2822, not that from section 4.

-- 
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