[yam] Syntax of MIME documents (RFC 822 or 5322?)
Julien ÉLIE <julien@trigofacile.com> Sun, 10 January 2010 17:45 UTC
Return-Path: <julien@trigofacile.com>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0753A6912 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:45:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.993
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.993 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.695, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
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 Jcm3D5iAx3zY for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:45:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 27.mail-out.ovh.net (27.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.30.210]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9912A3A6929 for <yam@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:45:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 28335 invoked by uid 503); 10 Jan 2010 16:04:26 -0000
Received: from b6.ovh.net (HELO mail93.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.56) by 27.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Jan 2010 16:04:25 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Jan 2010 14:59:08 -0000
Received: from aaubervilliers-151-1-8-94.w83-114.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) (julien%trigofacile.com@83.114.7.94) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Jan 2010 14:59:07 -0000
Message-ID: <B7A4317EB74542058E6657F472CC5396@Iulius>
From: Julien ÉLIE <julien@trigofacile.com>
To: yam@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:59:09 +0100
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="ISO-8859-15"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18005
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18005
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 16950141623657299270
X-Ovh-Remote: 83.114.7.94 (aaubervilliers-151-1-8-94.w83-114.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|U 0.5/N
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:51:28 -0800
Subject: [yam] Syntax of MIME documents (RFC 822 or 5322?)
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:45:50 -0000
Hi, Following a discussion on the USEFOR mailing-list: http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/msg04765.html http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/msg04766.html we wonder why RFC 5322 mentions that the MIME document series extends the syntax provided by RFC 5322 (Section 1.1): 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. For instance, RFC 2045, which is based upon RFC 822, defines (Section 5.1): parameter := attribute "=" value attribute := token ; Matching of attributes ; is ALWAYS case-insensitive. value := token / quoted-string and RFC 822 has the following rule (Section 3.4.2): Note: In structured field bodies, multiple linear space ASCII characters (namely HTABs and SPACEs) are treated as single spaces and may freely surround any symbol. In all header fields, the only place in which at least one LWSP-char is REQUIRED is at the beginning of continua- tion lines in a folded field. which is explicitly obsoleted by RFC 5322 (Section 4): Though these syntactic forms MUST NOT be generated according to the grammar in section 3, they MUST be accepted and parsed by a conformant receiver. One important difference between the obsolete (interpreting) and the current (generating) syntax is that in structured header field bodies (i.e., between the colon and the CRLF of any structured header field), white space characters, including folding white space, and comments could be freely inserted between any syntactic tokens. This allowed many complex forms that have proven difficult for some implementations to parse. Does it mean that a message that conforms to the syntax of RFC 5322 must not use a parameter like: posting-host = "posting.example.com:192.0.2.1" and must use: posting-host="posting.example.com:192.0.2.1" ? Have a nice week, -- Julien ÉLIE « Rubor, tumor, dolor, calor et functio laesa. »