[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] An nmh standard compliance tool
|
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] An nmh standard compliance tool |
|
Date: |
Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:57:08 -0500 |
>I'm not requesting or suggesting an nmh standard compliance tool. But I
>would like some understating of what it might be like and what it would
>take to implement it.
It depends ... which RFC are we talking about? RFC 5322? RFC 6409?
RFC 3207? RFC 1939? RFC 5321? RFC 2049? We implement all of those
at varying levels of compliance.
Okay, fine, I'm being a bit of a smart-ass :-). The discussion we had
before was about draft messages, so clearly you're talking about what
nmh produces as outgoing messages. That would be RFC 5322 with some of
the MIME RFCs thrown in.
>One observation: It seems to be that the -should and -must flags need
>to take an argument, the feature that is being checked for. There
>should also, therefore, be a -ignore flag. But, I have no idea what I'm
>talking about here.
Well, I guess I'd assume I'd check for all SHOULD/SHOULD NOTs and
MUST/MUST NOT by default. I wouldn't do any checking for MAY/MAY NOTs
without an option. And if you'd want to disable specific SHOULDs or
MUSTs, I guess you'd need switches as well.
--Ken