[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible
From: |
Cameron Patrick |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible |
Date: |
Sat, 29 May 2004 14:36:39 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105+cjp-1i |
James Blackwell wrote:
| > It sounds like the bug is using a `strict RFC 822' parser to load
| > patch-logs...
|
| I'd disagree. If one of the intentions of patch logs is to be RFC 822
| compliant, then it should be so, even under strict parsers.
RFC 822 also requires the presence of a From: field and To:/Cc:/Bcc:
fields. Patch logs don't contain these now and I don't see why they
should in future. Perhaps we shouldn't be claiming RFC 822 compliance
at all?
Cameron.
- [Gnu-arch-users] patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, Jeremy Shaw, 2004/05/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, Miles Bader, 2004/05/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, Jeremy Shaw, 2004/05/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, Miles Bader, 2004/05/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, Matthew Dempsky, 2004/05/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, Miles Bader, 2004/05/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, James Blackwell, 2004/05/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible,
Cameron Patrick <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible, Miles Bader, 2004/05/29