Advice on RFC 2822 interpretation
Joseph Bui
to sending and receiving email. I found some messages in this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/fa.ietf-822/browse_thread/thread/df5c8d1215d872b3/cbaaafb3b5ff401f?hl=en&
that seem to be discussions of revising RFC 2822.
I'm particularly wondering about the interpretation of the following
rules:
text = %d1-9 / ; Characters excluding CR and
LF
%d11 /
%d12 /
%d14-127 /
obs-text
obs-text = *LF *CR *(obs-char *LF *CR)
obs-char = %d0-9 / %d11 / ; %d0-127 except CR
and
%d12 / %d14-127 ; LF
This is mentioned as "a bug" in a message from Mr. Resnick in this
message in the above mentioned thread
http://groups.google.com/group/fa.ietf-822/msg/ab7240f444791b51?dmode=source&hl=en
but there is no resolution described and the RFC http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
still seems to contain the same syntax.
As noted in the thread, the obs-text and obs-char rules appear to
allow text to be:
1) a single US ASCII character in 0-127
2) a sequence of US ASCII characters of any length that does not
include LF or CR that is
a) optionally preceeded by any number of CRs which are optionally
preceeded by any number of LFs
b) optionally followed by any number of LFs which are optionally
followed by any number of CRs
Example 2) NUL DEL NUL
Example 2a) LF LF LF CR CR NUL DEL NUL
Example 2b) NUL DEL NUL LF LF CR CR CR
Example 2a and 2b) LF LF CR CR NUL DEL NUL LF LF CR CR
Am I looking at the wrong source for information on interpreting email
messages? Am I interpreting these rules incorrectly?
Thanks,
Joseph Bui
Barry Margolin
Joseph Bui <chic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is mentioned as "a bug" in a message from Mr. Resnick in this
> message in the above mentioned thread
> http://groups.google.com/group/fa.ietf-822/msg/ab7240f444791b51?dmode=source&h
> l=en
> but there is no resolution described and the RFC
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
> still seems to contain the same syntax.
Of course it does. RFC's don't get rewritten to fix bugs, new RFC's get
written to update, clarify, or replace them.
But this doesn't happen very often. The first set of updates and
clarifications to RFC 822 were in RFC 1122, 7 years later. The next
major set were in RFC 2822, another 12 years later.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Ken Murchison
> I'm looking for advice on interpreting RFC 2822 and standards related
> to sending and receiving email. I found some messages in this thread
> http://groups.google.com/group/fa.ietf-822/browse_thread/thread/df5c8d1215d872b3/cbaaafb3b5ff401f?hl=en&
> that seem to be discussions of revising RFC 2822.
>
> I'm particularly wondering about the interpretation of the following
> rules:
>
> text = %d1-9 / ; Characters excluding CR and
> LF
> %d11 /
> %d12 /
> %d14-127 /
> obs-text
>
> obs-text = *LF *CR *(obs-char *LF *CR)
>
> obs-char = %d0-9 / %d11 / ; %d0-127 except CR
> and
> %d12 / %d14-127 ; LF
>
> This is mentioned as "a bug" in a message from Mr. Resnick in this
> message in the above mentioned thread
> http://groups.google.com/group/fa.ietf-822/msg/ab7240f444791b51?dmode=source&hl=en
> but there is no resolution described and the RFC http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
> still seems to contain the same syntax.
Take a look at the following for any errata and pending updates:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata2.html
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-resnick-2822upd-02.txt
Jorgen Grahn
> In article <1188404220.3...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> Joseph Bui <chic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is mentioned as "a bug" in a message from Mr. Resnick in this
>> message in the above mentioned thread
>> http://groups.google.com/group/fa.ietf-822/msg/ab7240f444791b51?dmode=source&h
>> l=en
>> but there is no resolution described and the RFC
>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
>> still seems to contain the same syntax.
>
> Of course it does. RFC's don't get rewritten to fix bugs, new RFC's get
> written to update, clarify, or replace them.
The discussion he refers to was from 2004 -- I assume before RFC2822
was finalized. In that light, what he writes makes sense.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu
\X/ snipabacken.dyndns.org> R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
Barry Margolin
Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.dyndns.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:19:28 -0400, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
> > In article <1188404220.3...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Joseph Bui <chic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is mentioned as "a bug" in a message from Mr. Resnick in this
> >> message in the above mentioned thread
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/fa.ietf-822/msg/ab7240f444791b51?dmode=sourc
> >> e&h
> >> l=en
> >> but there is no resolution described and the RFC
> >> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
> >> still seems to contain the same syntax.
> >
> > Of course it does. RFC's don't get rewritten to fix bugs, new RFC's get
> > written to update, clarify, or replace them.
>
> The discussion he refers to was from 2004 -- I assume before RFC2822
> was finalized. In that light, what he writes makes sense.
Not really. That discussion took place 3 years after RFC 2822 was
published in 2001.
Jorgen Grahn
> In article <slrnfddbfm.5...@frailea.sa.invalid>,
> Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.dyndns.org> wrote:
>> The discussion he refers to was from 2004 -- I assume before RFC2822
>> was finalized. In that light, what he writes makes sense.
>
> Not really. That discussion took place 3 years after RFC 2822 was
> published in 2001.
Oh, sorry. Was it really that long ago? I should have checked.