From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bill Wohler Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: User-Agent header Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:41:50 -0800 Organization: Newt Software Message-ID: <878x1agpsh.fsf@olgas.newt.com> References: <200802232244.m1NMiK5I014327@localhost.localdomain> <87oda6fc5o.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1203878543 20158 80.91.229.12 (24 Feb 2008 18:42:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:42:23 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 24 19:42:49 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JTLo9-0006li-Nb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:42:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JTLnd-00060w-RM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:42:09 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JTLnZ-00060Y-VF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:42:06 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JTLnY-000606-VI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:42:05 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JTLnY-0005zv-La for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:42:04 -0500 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JTLnY-0000l8-FG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:42:04 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JTLnS-0006Fs-0I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:41:58 +0000 Original-Received: from h-66-167-78-55.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([66.167.78.55]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:41:57 +0000 Original-Received: from wohler by h-66-167-78-55.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:41:57 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 33 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: h-66-167-78-55.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:wziZ3iMAl7OdHIoEXxMH5Ai96Zw= X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:90258 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > Reiner Steib writes: > > On Sun, Feb 24 2008, Leo wrote: > > > > > On 2008-02-24 09:05 +0000, Reiner Steib wrote: > > >> [BTW, your User-Agent header is not confirming to RFC 2616 or the > > >> usefor drafts.] > > Of course it's conforming to RFC 2616; RFC 2616 defines HTTP headers, > not mail headers. The drafts may define the same format (including by > reference to RFC 2616), but that's not the same as RFC 2616 > conformance. I was thinking the same thing :-). > In particular, the "usefor drafts" may impose additional syntactic > restrictions or permit extensions (both unlikely) or add semantic > interpretations. (In a trivial sense they do the latter two by > extending use of the header to mail.) And until this draft is promoted to RFC status, MH-E is still using X-Mailer (although we could update the format of the header field to conform with this draft). Assuming this draft applies to mail header fields. The draft refers to Usenet header fields in the "context" of RFCs 2822 and 2045; does that imply that this document "extends" RFCs 2822 and 2045? -- Bill Wohler http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD