According to RFC 2822, text in () represents comment (see section 3.2.3) and is used in the place where RFC2821 allows CFWS. CWFS is allowed to contain a comment (it's what differs FWS from CFWS).
So, while this format is not optimal for automated parsing, it does not violate RFCs. 19.04.2018 0:40, Erwin пишет: > Hi, > > This may be old hat to some, but staring at the RFCs (specifically > 2821) the only conclusion I see is that Microsoft is (or at least > *.outlook.com <http://outlook.com> servers are) violating the format > of the Received headers here: > > Received: from mta.email.thinkgeek.com > <http://mta.email.thinkgeek.com> (66.231.88.32) > by SN1NAM04FT019.mail.protection.outlook.com > <http://SN1NAM04FT019.mail.protection.outlook.com> (10.152.88.152) > with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, > cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P384) id 15.20.675.14 via > Frontend Transport; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:33:42 +0000 > > Should that IPv4 literal be enclosed with "[" and "]" tokens, either > as ([a.b.c.d]) or (hostname [a.b.c.d])? > > Thanks in advance, > Erwin > > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop -- Vladimir Dubrovin @Mail.Ru
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
