On 8/16/07, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/16/07, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stefano Bagnara schrieb: > > > I fully agree with Stefano, > > !! > > What is your point? That the API should enforce RFC compliance and not > the server? > Why? The servlet API doesn't enforce compliance with http or html > standards, the application server implementation might though.
there are good why it's rare for an API to actully insist on a particular parser implementation warts and all. including the parsing code in the API means that any fix will require a complete new version of the API to be issued. if it's important that the address is RFC compliant then this can and should be stated clearly in the API. the parsing should be left to the implementor. > If we leave this up to implementors then it is up to users to choose > ones which comply with appropriate standards. I don't think it is the > job of the mailet api to constrain things beyond what is necessary to > ensure that mailets work and are portable. > > James, or buni, or mailcatcher should validate addresses for compliance. i'm not sure that it's the validation as much as the parsing that is important. there are ways that an address header could fail to be RFC822 compliant but still contain a parsable local part and domain. i'd be happy to insist that the data exposed by the implementation is valid RFC822 but feel it's important that there is implementation freedom for the parsing phase. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
