In article <[email protected]> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >On Mon 2019-01-14 18:09:41 -0500, John R Levine wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Jan 2019, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >>> On Mon 2019-01-14 16:43:15 -0500, John Levine wrote: >>>> To show that you read it, please include the first word in the text >>>> on page 50 of RFC 5321 in your reply. >>> >>> I'm sorry to spoil it for everyone that the word is "The" :P >> >> Sigh. Nope. > >Maybe you're reading a different RFC 5321 than i am.
No, I just can't count. But you knew that. >I do observe that in the presence of a single parenthetical aside >between the mandatory part of the BY clause and the next stated clause, >it's pretty hard to see how an interpreter can distinguish whether the >contents of the parenthetical is a TCP-info (part of the BY clause) or a >Comment (not part of the BY clause), particularly if it matches the ABNF >for TCP-Info. That makes interpretation potentially ambiguous in the >most perverse corner cases. ABNF does not have to provide an unambigous parse, which often confuses people. You are correct that this could either be a TCP-info or a CFWS comment: > "(Postfix [19.01.14.23])" > >Probably fine to interpret it as a a TCP-info since it matches the ABNF, >but it's still a little weird that the ambiguity can exist. There's a lot of places where you need to use contextual clues to figure out what's going on. In this example, the fact that Postfix doesn't contain a dot is a strong clue that it's not a domain name. R's, John _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
