bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (09/13/89)
I received the following comment from a correspondent:
(b) I'm more upset, personally, by people like you who set up
"Reply-to:" entries that break vnews.
In the way I had my Reply-To: arranged, I was going by the last
paragraph of RFC1036 2.1.6 and the first sentence of 2.2.1 which
indicate that Reply-To: could contain any RFC822-legal "Internet
format" mail address. But I completely missed the last sentence of
2.2.1 which might disallow the notation I've been using [name
<address>] by specifying the other [address (name)] as an option.
I had always considered that Reply-To: was of interest only to
mailers, and therefore only needed to be an 822-legal address. But it
now seems that 1036 addresses the issue more directly than I had
originally though.
In the interests of being conservative in what I generate, I have
changed my Reply-To:, for now, just in case. Any comments?brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (09/13/89)
That's good, because non-conforming reply-to lines might have upset a newsclip program that looked at them. One of newsclip's primative data types is a 'userid' and it parses a news style from line to read it. Headers from, reply-to, sender and approved are all of this data type. Of course it's rare to use reply-to as a header. I should write a parser for full 822 names, but the rfc is a pain to decode on this point and it seems much moe hairy that it needs to be. Unless somebody has a quick 822 parser they want to give me or point me at. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473