On 04 Jul 2011 at 08:01, Stuart Dallas <stu...@3ft9.com> wrote: 

> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Karl DeSaulniers <k...@designdrumm.com>wrote:
>
>> Hello Stuart,
>> After some closer look at the RFC Compliant manuals you suggested,
>> I have determined that the creator of that code was in fact RFC821
>> Compliant.
>> Being that this was a code I found several years ago, RFC822 may not have
>> been in effect.
>> This being the reason (I believe) that the creator went with a check for
>> System OS when determining the end of line characters to use.
>> Not substantiated in any way, but that is what it looks like to me. I could
>> stand corrected.
>>
>
> RFC821: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, dated August 1982 (
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html)
>
> RFC822: Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages, dated August
> 13, 1982 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html)

There are more recent RFCs than these. RFC822 was obsoleted by RFC2822, for 
example, which was itself obsoleted by RFC 5322. See here:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322

I always use this site for looking at RFCs as every line in the contents of an 
RFC is an internal link which makes finding things in the RFC rather easier. 
The following list of RFCs is the set I consulted when writing my own email 
client:

a)  RFC 5034 POP3
b)  RFC 2821 SMTP
c)  RFC 5322 Internet Message Format
d)  RFC 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049, (MIME), and 2183


--
Cheers  --  Tim

-- 
PHP Database Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to