> On Apr 21, 2018, at 10:27, Vladimir Dubrovin via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> > wrote: > > > 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.
Check the grammar for trace headers specifically - the parenthesized text there isn’t CFWS and does have a defined structure. (Why it’s that way I have no idea - standardizing grammar that’s compatible with what was previously common use, maybe?) Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
