Re: Missing ABNF terms in 2821bis?

I've copied this conversation over to ietf-822, since I think that 
will probably be where this issue is addressed.

On 10/17/07 at 6:51 AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>>Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>>
>>>Which reminds me: What is the reason for allowing control 
>>>characters in email addresses?
>>
>>Idiocy.
>
>I try hard to stay out of these sorts of debates, but in this case I 
>am forced to agree. We are way past the point where backwards 
>compatibility is an acceptable excuse for something like this. It 
>should be obvious why  allowing nonprinting control characters in 
>addresses is a bad idea on many levels.
>
>And if common sense isn't enough here, how about the fact that it is 
>pretty clear that these things have obvious and severe 
>interoperability problems that will make it hard to meet the 
>criterua for draft standard?

Right now, control characters are allowed in the following:

- Domain literals on the right hand side of addresses
- Quoted strings (which can be on the left hand size of addresses as 
well as lots of other structured header fields)
- Comments (which can appear in lots of structured header fields 
including address fields)
- Unstructured text (in fields and in the body)

Where are you proposing we should remove controls?

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102