On 2/8/2018 8:05 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
I'm not saying any sensible person would do that, but as far as I can tell, that's what the spec says.



From a quick review of RFC 5322, I think you are correct. I also believe (know) that this is not what has been intended for header field name specification, dating back to RFC 733.

That is, the capability you note is contrary to what I believe was intended in the RFC 5322 specification. And deviation from iontent is the requirement for qualifying as an errata on an RFC.

I suggest you submit it.  It will be interesting to see the followup.

d/

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

Reply via email to