Sam,
Your reply is almost aggressively terse. Perhaps you could explain, for
the benefit of those of us less knowledgeable than yourself, exactly *how*
the To: line is broken and how it might be fixed. What should it look
like? And how does it reflect on section 3.4.6 of RFC822? Is that
section correct, incorrect or merely being taken out of context?
The original post simply asked if the proposed To line rfc compliant
or not, and just asked for the appropriate rfc.
In any case, the used To line is completely incorrect. It has nothing
to do with even the above section 3.4.6 rfc822; how do you want to
want to interpret [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] a domain literal? What more
Sam can explain? It is not his job to explain rfc822.
BTWY, section 6.2.3 explains what a domain literal is, and there is
also a paragraph on the recommendation on using them(not):
Domain-literals which refer to domains within the ARPA Inter-
net specify 32-bit Internet addresses, in four 8-bit fields
noted in decimal, as described in Request for Comments #820,
"Assigned Numbers." For example:
[10.0.3.19]
Note: THE USE OF DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. It
is permitted only as a means of bypassing temporary
system limitations, such as name tables which are not
complete.
Mate
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
