Article View: comp.mail.headers
Article #11Re: Is this RFC822 example illegal?
From: Barry Margolin
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:52
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:52
19 lines
1183 bytes
1183 bytes
In article <4580@daily-planet.concordia.ca> Gary Katch <gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca> writes:
> / "In-Reply-To" ":" *(phrase / msg-id)
...
> In-Reply-To: <some.string@DBM.Group>, George's message
>
>Given that only phrases or message-id's can appear in the
>field-body, and that phrases are made of words and words of atoms,
>and an atom cannot be a special, then the comma following
>the address in the example is illegal, right?
I think the example is OK. It's a msg-id followed by a phrase. The "*"
prefix in the syntax means that there can be any number of phrases and
msg-ids, delimited by commas.
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<14n66cINN2qo@early-bird.think.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!caen!sdd.hp.com!think.com!barmarReferences:
<4580@daily-planet.concordia.ca>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!caen!sdd.hp.com!think.com!barmar From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers Subject: Re: Is this RFC822 example illegal? Date: 23 Jul 1992 20:52:28 GMT Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Lines: 19 Message-ID: <14n66cINN2qo@early-bird.think.com> References: <4580@daily-planet.concordia.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com