ud@nitmar.uucp (01/05/90)
Hi there!
I am new in this froup, so I don't know if this topic had been
yet discussed (it may better fit to comp.mail.header, but I don't
receive that group).
There are some header-lines shich are containing a list of
addresses, e.g. To:, Cc:, Sender:, Reply-To:, From: and more. And I
think there is a problem in RFC822. It says that such a line may look
like:
id: address (comment) address -or-
id: address (comment), address (and some combinations) -or-
id: comment <address> (also in some variations)
So if you split such a line in its field there is no way to be
sure what is a comment and what not, without examineing the whole line.
So, make it sense to "remove" the last format from the RFC and allow only
comments in `(', `)' or is there any serious reason for this convention?
And RFC also says that an address in `<', `>' need no whitespace
to be a single expression. This makes no sense and increases the programming
work on parsing, or is there a reason I have missed?
Waiting for comments
U//i
---
Ulrich Dessauer, +49 89 841 78 11, ud@nitmar.uucp, ud%nitmar@[chi|doit].sub.orgenag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) (01/12/90)
Ulrich, Flame on. If you want to understand how mail headers work, study the RFC's, think about why some people with scads of experience, knowledge and understanding wanted it that way. DO NOT suggest random "improvements" just because YOU find it difficult to implement. RTFM, damn it. If you don't understand them, you have no business writing a parser. If you think that the whole rest of the world should stop using a perfectly valid format for addresses, simply because YOU DON'T WANT TO IMPLEMENT IT, please consider what kind of stupid suggestion you are making. Flame off. You may want to write a parser which does not understand all of RFC 822. That's up to you. I won't hinder you, and neither would anyone else. It's your own problem that scads of mail will fail to get through it. I suggest that you try a faithful implementation of RFC 822, and please read RFC 1123 before you attempt that. You should also try to understand why Dave Crocker and the IMHO great guys who contributed to that standard defined the syntax elements the way they did, not just randomly listed "some header-lines contain a list of addresses". RFC 822 does NOT say what you pretend it says. There are a few problems with RFC 822. What you blabber about is not one of them. Don't be afraid of things that "increases the programming work". Be afraid of people who argue against things solely because they need to work a little harder to get things right. (Note: I said "get things _right_", not "get things _working_". "Working" is a subset of "right.") Reconsider posting your "suggestions", as well. [Erik Naggum]
andyb@coat.com (Andy Behrens) (01/13/90)
Erik Naggum writes: > I suggest that you try a faithful implementation of RFC 822, and > please read RFC 1123 before you attempt that. About 2 years ago, David Herron posted a RFC822 Yacc parser to comp.sources.misc (archive entry 8710/19). I can mail a copy to anyone who is unable to get them from the archives. -- Live justly, love gently, walk humbly. Andy Behrens andyb@coat.com also: andyb%coat.com@dartmouth.edu uucp: {uunet,rutgers}!dartvax!coat.com!andyb RFD 1, Box 116, East Thetford, Vt. 05043 +1 (802) 649-1258 Burlington Coat, PO Box 729, Lebanon, N.H. 03766 +1 (603) 448-5000