Re: Parsing the Injection-Info: header field

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> Mon, 11 January 2010 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-usefor-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-usefor-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9CC3A67FB for <ietfarch-usefor-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:13:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.268
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.268 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.734, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id shYRwsuMdnfU for <ietfarch-usefor-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:13:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA2B3A6824 for <usefor-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:13:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o0BHCD0c048887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:12:14 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id o0BHCBiS048885; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:12:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from v-smtp-auth-relay-1.gradwell.net (v-smtp-auth-relay-1.gradwell.net [79.135.125.40]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o0BHC77P048875 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3$clerew#man$ac$uk) by v-smtp-auth-relay-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) id 4b4b5be5.3c64.358 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:12:05 +0000 (envelope-sender <news@clerew.man.ac.uk>)
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id o0BHC28j028339 for <ietf-usefor@imc.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:12:02 GMT
Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id o0BHC1Ex028334 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:12:01 GMT
To: ietf-usefor@imc.org
Xref: clerew local.usefor:25226
Path: clerew!chl
From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Parsing the Injection-Info: header field
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Message-ID: <Kw32wD.A0o@clerew.man.ac.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
References: <3F6C660203CE4751A068B86CD382864E@Iulius> <20100109073118.GB4413@kukkaseppele.kaijanaho.fi> <7FDA90361E9E4C85A22D79FA9014E5C0@Iulius>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:02:37 +0000
Lines: 30
Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-usefor.imc.org>

In <7FDA90361E9E4C85A22D79FA9014E5C0@Iulius> Julien ÉLIE <julien@trigofacile.com> writes:

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

How can that possibly be so, since it was written umpteen years earlier?
Anything that "extended RFC 5322 would have to be written _after_ that.

RFC 2045, and its relations, provides syntax for many new header fields.
>From reading RFC 2045 and RFC 822, you can deduce *exactly* where CFWS is
allowed. If RFC were to be re-written (a highly desirable thing BTW), then
if would redefine its syntax with explicite CFWS, presumably in exactly
the same places as now, unless it chose to declare some of them to be
obsolete as 5322 has done.

It is clear that, according to RFC 2045, CFWS is allowed on both sides of
the '=' in a <parameter> (and why shouldn't it?). And, just to make sure, I
checked my interpretation with Keith Moore before writing the original
version of the paragraph which you quoted.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      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