> * Is it useful/desirable to parse the message-id field (into left and > right parts)? I get the impression that a relatively high number of > mail messages have syntactically illegal message-id values--two @ signs > seems to be a particularly common offense. Since the message-id is > really intended to be used as an opaque value, wouldn't it be more > robust and equally useful for the parser to treat it as such?
I dont think there's any need to parse this. > * Is it useful/desirable to parse the Received field into name/value > pairs? If so, anyone on this list have a lot of experience with > real-world Received values? It looks to me like there are a lot of > illegal Received headers out there, as well as a lot of useful > information stuck in parenthetical comments. In fact, according to Dan > Bernstein, "It is probably best for readers to treat everything before > the final semicolon as unstructured text, purely for human consumption." > (http://cr.yp.to/immhf/envelope.html) Agree/disagree? Yes and no. I dont really know if it's intended to be machine readable, but it is more useful for tracing messages. However, one useful part of this header is the "for" attribute, and i believe this is used in fetchmail. Daniel. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
