Re: [Fwd: Netscape mail client error]

[tschroed () ACM ORG (Trevor Schroeder)]

On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Blue Boar wrote:

> Well, I assert that mail with a year of 9999 or 0000 is "valid" by your
> definition, and yet that's likely to cause trouble with at least a couple

It's not just my definition, it's one the IETF seems pretty fond of as
well.

> of mail clients.  Strict RFC compliance is a good place to start, but may
> not be completely sufficient.

Nothing is ever completely sufficient.  What you're talking about it a
silver bullet, an MTA that automagically filters out any content that may
be problematic for any client that may consume it.  (Assuming, of course,
that we put the burden on MTA's--not at all unreasonable, IMHO)

Of course on the other hand, in theory, the MTA shouldn't have to filter
out anything, because the clients should be well enough constructed as to
be able to tolerate non-compliant messages.

Naturally, both alternatives are Utopian.  The best we can do is assume
(and indeed expect) that our clients will at least be able to tolerate an
RFC compliant message.  The MTA can legally discard anything else.  And I
might say that I would be a little upset if my MTA discarded RFC compliant
messages for no better reason than it didn't seem to make sense to the
self-same MTA.

What if, for example, my RTC is REALLY off?  My mailer may generate valid,
but incorrect, dates.  Should its messages be rejected?
..........................................................................
: "I knew it was going to cost me my head and also my swivel chair, but  :
: I thought: What the hell--better men than I have risked their heads    :
: and their swivel chairs for truth and justice." -- James P. Cannon     :
:........... http://www.zweknu.org/ for PGP key and more ................: