2 Jul
2012
2 Jul
'12
2:51 p.m.
Other sources
of commas in References: are software that copies
existing References: blindly, adding message-IDs to one end or the
other, thus perpetuating mistakes but at least not making them
worse. [...]
This is then probably "my fault". My MUA just copied the
References:
which where already present and didn't "fixed" them. But - there is
no paragraph in the RFC about fixing wrong headers ;) And if your MUA is not able to handle the References
header with
comma and/or without - you are not able to read old emails written
until RFC 5322 came out and thus having "," in there References
header?
Heh.
No, my UA is like yours in this respect. The nonsyntactic References:
header didn't break anything for me. Every once in a while when I
notice such syntax errors, I mention them, in the (admittedly faint,
these days) hope that whatever is producing or propagating them will
get a bug report filed against it. I don't do it very often, and don't
get very vigorous about it, both because I often don't notice and
because I'm very aware my own UA is guilty of mistake-by-propagation.
(I really should have it ignore such headers when they're nonsyntactic
or some such.)
Expecting every MUA to be compatible only to the
latest RFC is a
little bit naive - eh?
Oh, certainly. "Expect" is a verb with multiple incompatible meanings.
I don't expect it in the sebse of "consider probable", but I do expect
it in the sense of "consider reasonable or due", at least with respect
to aspects on which the specs haven't changed in over a decade.
Instead of tilting at windmills, save your time ;)
"You might want to fix it" hardly strikes me as tilting at windmills.
You may note I wasn't yammering about how you MUST MUST FIX THIS
INSTANTLY IF NOT SOONER BECAUSE IT'S BROKEN! BROKEN! BROKEN!!11eleven!.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B