Re: [ietf-822] Question regarding RFC 2369
Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com> Tue, 24 July 2018 15:42 UTC
Return-Path: <poccil14@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D17013114B for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qFQXVP7OM2HL for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22a.google.com (mail-yw0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D300130EAB for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id v197-v6so1693241ywg.3 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:mime-version:to:from:subject:date:importance:in-reply-to :references; bh=AjESebiHrr6mY2y6AhDRJkyPb72ePt/NUqFNOpx/NNE=; b=uAMr8CqTYkOc/ojWkLjiEpNJW6EHRloq/CgPVeIFkO1rnm9Sq1Sd61roDoz9ehSyzT p1G7Fo7j4cEcqQ0e6eIR+FiWGgDLyHuOH/Ccvj5B9SeklxD/0F5t5tk7m9oZkqfbVY7Q K64y0VHdcDViIuTS02MeQU6fiBSY5Z+EHlOaGbyuAi3addlZxvHRjVre4nqtvLcMuVzo 4Fow08sfJFCG6hC905HaO7OmF6MRudTUKILG2MRRbx64VJ4XL52e3nfGfEYpL7AFwGln GtR9WUZPWX0knZ+vBTfuixwwM17pCIsxWYTfjgd55+H9oq7gyMTqVX5ax61Vl6V+33mk 3qiQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:mime-version:to:from:subject:date :importance:in-reply-to:references; bh=AjESebiHrr6mY2y6AhDRJkyPb72ePt/NUqFNOpx/NNE=; b=d3mvKm7YhbB7q+HKrh/kp8hecWy+/iyLjEI2ADGOU3Z2JneLs/AXaZ/KP0qBM8wnRz y/OT5mS6Pz3ar4AXfJUnPgHYdalw4VWkjeFT4wGmkzzjKI72e4oZNG/5llkIT4t4FCXf KRcP377GFU+DRXM0DksLmCbLmHa/TmuSO0m+hATeroTLWvvTZ3xrsP2Ru3Q+kTTsGbKB jCuEM5HWadWdC2XQp31UF4CN/93rBq0bW1feV9Z4WPDWz0VyRG5s9/lzb6CBOfY3/69T R6KKr3ucRMkAAL2ybRAqFg9qH/PAQn/RANEbjURIhcSglfJI3vGh/kz0bmWkkPCn/EvD LjIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEuI9JrumGo9Tuw5fFVswbZdqPE8BVabPeXsJ+x+jF5qABn8p2j KVPDvwwWf1X/SVRpEGWcuG/B2B2MMi8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcObT65o+UYMv+jmoyEP1CBtcCECrNpVs8M4xanoEa2px0MtQXHTwsB9BVyJgx6NIrGYFEiZQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a81:3781:: with SMTP id e123-v6mr9077404ywa.32.1532446976376; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:192:4e00:596:22:8b71:4eb9:6006? ([2601:192:4e00:596:22:8b71:4eb9:6006]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h65-v6sm457047ywe.75.2018.07.24.08.42.55 for <ietf-822@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5b5748ff.1c69fb81.17fe9.2595@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "ietf-822@ietf.org" <ietf-822@ietf.org>
From: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:42:58 -0400
Importance: normal
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <5b5074de.1c69fb81.64f70.e19f@mx.google.com>
References: <5b5074de.1c69fb81.64f70.e19f@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_7B70481D-8C83-4DA6-836C-001D8E0BF74B_"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/8SZ5KDmkKD7lEtiIZiCYvHz9Gao>
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] Question regarding RFC 2369
X-BeenThere: ietf-822@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Internet Message Format \[RFC 822, RFC 2822, RFC 5322\]" <ietf-822.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-822/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-822@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 15:42:59 -0000
Upon further thought, the text that I cited in RFC 2369 ("MTAs MUST NOT insert whitespace within the brackets [contained in list header fields]") might not apply to mail user agents, and particularly not to the software library that I referred to in a previous message, which is primarily for mail user agents, not MTAs.
As a result, I declare my question moot.
--Peter
From: Peter Occil
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 7:24 AM
To: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Question regarding RFC 2369
RFC 2369 sec. 2 currently says:
MTAs MUST NOT insert whitespace within the brackets [contained
in list header fields], but client applications should treat any
whitespace, that might be inserted by poorly behaved MTAs,
as characters to ignore.
[…]
- Re: [ietf-822] Question regarding RFC 2369 John Levine
- Re: [ietf-822] Question regarding RFC 2369 Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [ietf-822] Question regarding RFC 2369 Peter Occil