Re: [art] not an erratum in RFC 6376, was Argh!!!! onto https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php

[Steffen Nurpmeso <[e-mail]>]

Hello Mr. Klensin.

John C Klensin wrote in
 <44387288FF0DB8BDCA823345@PSB>:
 |--On Thursday, March 21, 2024 02:01 +0100 Steffen Nurpmeso
 |<[e-mail]> wrote:
 |> John Levine wrote in
 |>  <[e-mail]>:
 |>|It appears that Steffen Nurpmeso  <[e-mail]> said:
 ...
 |>|See, for example, the last paragraph on page 13 of RFC 5321,
 |> published \  |in 2008.
 ...
 |> That is about domain names...
 |
 |Apparently a typo on John's part.  Try the bottom of Page 14.
 |To save time, the paragraph, at the end of Section 2.3.8, says:
 |
 | "In addition, the appearance of "bare" "CR" or "LF"
 | characters in text (i.e., either without the other) has a
 | long history of causing problems in mail implementations
 | and applications that use the mail system as a tool. SMTP
 | client implementations MUST NOT transmit these characters
 | except when they are intended as line terminators and then
 | MUST, as indicated above, transmit them only as a <CRLF>
 | sequence." 
 |
 |To put both John's comment and the statement about a long
 |history in better perspective, exactly the same paragraph
 |appears at the end of Section 2.3.7 of RFC 2821 (April 2001).
 |While RFC 821 does not say things that explicitly, it makes it
 |quite clear that both commands and lines are terminated in CRLF
 |and only CRLF, so these things have been clear for at least 20
 |years and actually more like over 40.    If those documents, all
 |of which have page numbers, are outdated, we probably don't mean
 |the same thing when we talk about Internet email.  And, btw, the
 |same paragraph appears in draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-27
 |(with page numbers in the text form).  If you find that
 |objectionable, this would be a good time to try to convince that
 |WG.

Thank you for all this time, Mr. Klensin.

 |If the "real life software" to which you refer violates those
 |rules about CRLF, interoperability difficulties are to be
 |predicted.  It seems to me that the issues you are having just
 |demonstrate that point because you are having what sounds like
 |interoperability problems.

No i am only deaf (not dumb as i just had written; but maybe also
that, .. of course) and did not listen to Wiete Venema of postfix,
John Levine and maybe more.  Claus Assmann.

No it was too late at night and i did take my thought (there is
only one possibility left -- of "LF is literal", "LF is to be
stripped", and "LF is whitespace") for granted; apparantly the
last worked out for weeks starting in the afternoon thereafter
because of the folding that continues with whitespace.
Wietse Venema of postfix said weeks ago something like "this is
used for DKIM signing since 2006".  I just did not listen.
(What was actually wrong with me testing "LF is to be stripped",
i do not know.  It now works, exactly so, that much is plain.)

Friendly greetings from Germany, Mr. Klensin.

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)