On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 09:40:27PM +0200, Platonides wrote:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
I misunderstood you to be talking about RHSs.
LHSs *must* be treated
as case-sensitive, regardless how many providers don't actually do it
that way.
Without any other data, they must. That's why i'm proposing it as a list
of providers, rather than on a global basis. If we positively know that
they're internaly case-insensitive, and treating them as such will make
life easier for our users. Why not do it?
Because you *can't* 'positively' know for any other time but right
now... and more importantly, because as you quote, conveniently:
RFC 821 (August 1982), section 2;
Commands and replies are not case sensitive. That is, a command or
reply word may be upper case, lower case, or any mixture of upper and
lower case. Note that this is not true of mailbox user names. For
some hosts the user name is case sensitive, and SMTP implementations
must take case to preserve the case of user names as they appear in
mailbox arguments. Host names are not case sensitive.
the RFC says you have to. More specifically, it defines the semantics
of an Internet email address, and that's the item you're ... oh.
You're talking about for matching purposes. I'm sorry; I'm kind of
slow today.
I understand both sides of this argument, and while the spec really
says that you can't do it that way, any administrator who assigns root
and Root to 2 different mailboxes should be boiled in oil, hung, shot,
drawn and quartered, and the pieces arrested.
So yeah, why not? :-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates
http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274