Re: FWS problem

[Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> USEFOR already says that we take only the syntax from
> section 3 of RFC 2822, not that from section 4.

Okay, then the FWS problem is reduced to 2*7 occurences
in 7 productions of usefor-02, and about 2*7 [CFWS].  For
[FWS] I get:

1: unstructured    = *WSP 1*utext *([FWS] 1*utext) *WSP

Very dubious, it's essentially any ASCII minus NUL, CR, or LF,
but allowing CRLF.  And again all those funny NO-WS-CTL, sigh.

Is "Subject:" SP ESC CRLF TAB NAK CRLF SP SUB CRLF really what
we want ?  A SUB is an EOF on some systems, and my text editor
and some other tools still handle it as EOF unless I want them
to ignore it.

2: msg-id          = *WSP msg-id-core *WSP
3: newsgroup-list  = *WSP newsgroup-name
                     *( [FWS] "," [FWS] newsgroup-name ) *WSP
4: path-list       = *WSP
                     *( path-identity [FWS] path-delimiter [FWS] )
                     tail-entry *WSP
5: poster-text     = *WSP %d112.111.115.116.101.114 *WSP
6: control         = "Control:" SP control-message CRLF
   control-message = *WSP verb *( [FWS] argument ) *WSP
7: dist-list       = *WSP dist-name *( "," [FWS] distaname ) *WSP

For newsgroup-list you allow [FWS] before and after the comma,
for dist-list it's only after the comma, is this what you want ?

And now the seven [CFWS] in "our" headers, defining "our" by
"already not the same as in RfC 2822 for some other reasons"):

1: references      = "References:" SP msg-id-list CRLF
   msg-id-list     = *WSP msg-id-core *([CFWS] msg-id-core) *WSP

Is that really what we want, no separator or only a comment as
separator is okay ?  s-o-1036 has apparently 1*WSP as separator.

2: supersedes      = "Supersedes:" SP *WSP msg-id-core *WSP CRLF
3: injection-info  = "Injection-Info:" SP *WSP path-identity
                     *( [CFWS] ";" [CFWS] inj-info-para )
                     *WSP CRLF

Dubious.  I've added [CFWS] before and after the semicolon, your
syntax allowed "Injection-Info:" SP CFWS path-identity CFWS CRLF
among other things.

4: lines           = "Lines" ":" SP *WSP 1*DIGIT *WSP CRLF

Who needs a comment in a deprecated header, let alone folding ?

The remaining three [CFWS] cases:  xref, archive, and user-agent.
Especially the latter needs any "CWSP" it can get, but no FWS
before or after its header content.  TBD if you agree so far
with the 7+3 simple cases, and maybe the dubious Injection-Info.

                           Bye. Frank

P.S. and OT:  Sometimes something on your side adds ***SPAM-3***
              to the subject, and I forget to remove it.