Re: [yam] Syntax of MIME documents (RFC 822 or 5322?)
Julien ÉLIE <julien@trigofacile.com> Tue, 12 January 2010 15:56 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 95BD33A685D for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 07:56:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.877
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.578, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 dILIvM9IR8Ha for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 07:56:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 6.mail-out.ovh.net (6.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.25.210]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5309B3A6891 for <yam@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 07:56:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 13706 invoked by uid 503); 11 Jan 2010 23:48:34 -0000
Received: from b3.ovh.net (HELO mail440.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.53) by 6.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 11 Jan 2010 23:48:34 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 11 Jan 2010 21:56:27 -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; 11 Jan 2010 21:56:24 -0000
Message-ID: <67E7F47C8FA042F9906A99DBE24594D3@Iulius>
From: Julien ÉLIE <julien@trigofacile.com>
To: yam@ietf.org
References: <B7A4317EB74542058E6657F472CC5396@Iulius> <01NIAKQ0AP5Q004042@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01NIAKQ0AP5Q004042@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:56:26 +0100
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-15"; reply-type="response"
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: 11423380455411350854
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
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:56:13 -0000
Hi Ned, > RFCs 2045 and 2046 were written before DRUMS and RFCs > 2821/2822/5321/5322 and therefore used the syntactic convensions of RFC 822, > where LWSP is implicitly allowed between tokens. The fact that DRUMS opted to > make the places where LWSP is allowed explicit rather than implicit doesn't > change the syntax rules for 2045 and 2046 in any way. shape or form. > > I also note that had RFC 5322 had any effect on MIME syntax, the header of the > document would show that it updates RFCs 2045 and 2046. The document header > says no such thing. OK, thanks a lot for having answered! > P.S. When revised MIME specifications come out they will probably switch to the > explicit LWSP approach since it seems that's the preferred way to do it now. Understood. Thanks, -- Julien ÉLIE « Cela n'a rien de remarquable. Il suffit d'appuyer sur la bonne touche au bon moment et l'instrument joue tout seul. » (J.-S. Bach)