Re: Parsing the Injection-Info: header field

[Julien ÉLIE <julien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Antti-Juhani,

> > Why should RFC 822 be followed here?
>
> This is how I understand it:
>
> Because RFC 2231 is what defines <parameter>, and RFC 2231 is written in the
> context of RFC 822 ABNF, not RFC 5322 (or RFC 2822) ABNF.  Thus, the implicit
> CFWS semantics of RFC 822 must be applied to the definition of <parameter>,
> even though the rest of RFC 5536 follows RFC 5322 in not having implicit CFWS.

Yet, RFC 5322 mentions in its introduction:

  This document specifies a syntax only for text messages.  In
  particular, it makes no provision for the transmission of images,
  audio, or other sorts of structured data in electronic mail messages.
  There are several extensions published, such as the MIME document
  series ([RFC2045], [RFC2046], [RFC2049]), which describe mechanisms
  for the transmission of such data through electronic mail, either by
  extending the syntax provided here or by structuring such messages to
  conform to this syntax.  Those mechanisms are outside of the scope of
  this specification.

I understand that RFC 2045 now extends the syntax of RFC 5322 (instead
of RFC 822).

RFC 2231 extends the syntax of RFC 2045 so it is normally currently
based on RFC 5322.



> > So it shows that a space is allowed before "=".
> > Isn't it a difference with RFC 5322 that ought to be mentioned in appendix C?
>
> What difference is that?  RFC 5322 does not define <parameter>.

Sure, but USEFOR is said to comply with RFC 5322 which specifies that RFC 2045
syntax is now based upon RFC 5322 (or that RFC 2045 is to structure messages
to conform to RFC 5322 -- which is basically the same for now unauthorized
folding rules).



> This confusion is caused by that the MIME specs have not (yet?) been updated to
> match RFC 5322.

It depends on whether a software is compliant to RFC 822 or not.
When a software complies with RFC 2822 or 5322, the new syntax is to be used
since MIME specs are said to extend these new RFCs instead of the obsoleted
RFC 822.



Is RFC 5322 to be read in another way when it speaks about RFC 2045?

--
Julien ÉLIE

« -- Essayons d'interroger ce garde habilement sans éveiller ses soupçons...
 -- Hep ! Où est enfermé Assurancetourix ? » (Astérix)