[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: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible |
Date: |
Sat, 29 May 2004 06:39:21 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 02:36:39PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> 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?
Yeah. When non-mail-related stuff claims to use `RFC 822 syntax' they almost
always mean just the abstract header syntax, not the actual selection or
contents of the headers.
-Miles
--
"Though they may have different meanings, the cries of 'Yeeeee-haw!' and
'Allahu akbar!' are, in spirit, not actually all that different."
- [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, 2004/05/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch logs not rfc(2)822 compatible,
Miles Bader <=