home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!bloom-beacon!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!aun.uninett.no!nuug!ifi.uio.no!naggum.no
- From: erik@naggum.no (Erik Naggum)
- Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
- Subject: Re: What is this "Comments:" field?
- Message-ID: <23263B@erik.naggum.no>
- Date: 28 Jul 92 20:41:27 GMT
- References: <gaojeng.712322596@durras>
- Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway
- Lines: 28
-
- J. Gao <gaojeng@durras.anu.edu.au> writes:
- |
- | The subject says it all. I have had a mesg with this field, which simply
- | serves the function of Cc; for it says: "To: <a bunch of addresses>"
- |
- | Can anyone explain this?
-
- Doesn't anybody read RFC's anymore?
-
- For the answer to this, and numerous other questions, consult RFC 822.
- Sub-sub-clause 4.7.2, to be exact. (Not quoted herein, for your long-
- term benefit.) It's highly recommended reading. For extra background
- material, see also RFC 733 and RFC 724, and even trusty, old RFC 561
- should be read for the earliest history.
-
- As I was browsing for comments on Comments, I found the reason for the
- "," in the In-Reply-To example, too. Back in RFC 733 days, In-Reply-To
- was a comma-separated list. I occasionally get mail from people whose
- mailers use RFC 733 date syntax, and sometimes RFC 733 time syntax. RFC
- 733 is not dead, it just expired 10 years ago this October! BITNET
- seems to hold on to it, and to bogus timezones, too.
-
- Curiosity: RFC 733 allowed four-digit years, while RFC 822 did not, and
- it had to be reintroduced into RFC 822 in the Host Requirements RFC's
- (RFC 1123).
-
- Best regards,
- </Erik>
- --
- Erik Naggum | ISO 8879 SGML |
- | ISO 10744 HyTime |
- +47-295-0313 | ISO 10646 UCS | Memento, terrigena.
- <erik@naggum.no> | ISO 9899 C | Memento, vita brevis.
-