--694C6574746572-1309764858
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 04 Jul 2011 at 08:01, Stuart Dallas <stuart [at] 3ft9.com> wrote: =0D=0A=
=0D=0A=
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Karl DeSaulniers <karl [at] designdrumm.com>wr=
ote:=0D=0A=
>=0D=0A=
>> Hello Stuart,=0D=0A=
>> After some closer look at the RFC Compliant manuals you suggested,=0D=0A=
>> I have determined that the creator of that code was in fact RFC821=0D=0A=
>> Compliant.=0D=0A=
>> Being that this was a code I found several years ago, RFC822 may not hav=
e=0D=0A=
>> been in effect.=0D=0A=
>> This being the reason (I believe) that the creator went with a check for=0D=0A=
>> System OS when determining the end of line characters to use.=0D=0A=
>> Not substantiated in any way, but that is what it looks like to me. I co=
uld=0D=0A=
>> stand corrected.=0D=0A=
>>=0D=0A=
>=0D=0A=
> RFC821: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, dated August 1982 (=0D=0A=
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html)=0D=0A=
>=0D=0A=
> RFC822: Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages, dated Aug=
ust=0D=0A=
> 13, 1982 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html)=0D=0A=
=0D=0A=
There are more recent RFCs than these. RFC822 was obsoleted by RFC2822, for=
example, which was itself obsoleted by RFC 5322. See here:=0D=0A=
=0D=0A=
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322=0D=0A=
=0D=0A=
I always use this site for looking at RFCs as every line in the contents of=
an RFC is an internal link which makes finding things in the RFC rather ea=
sier. The following list of RFCs is the set I consulted when writing my own=
email client:=0D=0A=
=0D=0A=
a) RFC 5034 POP3=0D=0A=
b) RFC 2821 SMTP=0D=0A=
c) RFC 5322 Internet Message Format=0D=0A=
d) RFC 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049, (MIME), and 2183=0D=0A=
=0D=0A=
=0D=0A=
--=0D=0A=
Cheers -- Tim


--694C6574746572-1309764858
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

--
PHP Database Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--694C6574746572-1309764858--

On Jul 4, 2011, at 2:34 AM, Tim Streater wrote:

> On 04 Jul 2011 at 08:01, Stuart Dallas <stuart [at] 3ft9.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Karl DeSaulniers
>> <karl [at] designdrumm.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Stuart,
>>> After some closer look at the RFC Compliant manuals you suggested,
>>> I have determined that the creator of that code was in fact RFC821
>>> Compliant.
>>> Being that this was a code I found several years ago, RFC822 may
>>> not have
>>> been in effect.
>>> This being the reason (I believe) that the creator went with a
>>> check for
>>> System OS when determining the end of line characters to use.
>>> Not substantiated in any way, but that is what it looks like to
>>> me. I could
>>> stand corrected.
>>>
>>
>> RFC821: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, dated August 1982 (
>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html)
>>
>> RFC822: Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages,
>> dated August
>> 13, 1982 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html)
>
> There are more recent RFCs than these. RFC822 was obsoleted by
> RFC2822, for example, which was itself obsoleted by RFC 5322. See
> here:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322
>
> I always use this site for looking at RFCs as every line in the
> contents of an RFC is an internal link which makes finding things
> in the RFC rather easier. The following list of RFCs is the set I
> consulted when writing my own email client:
>
> a) RFC 5034 POP3
> b) RFC 2821 SMTP
> c) RFC 5322 Internet Message Format
> d) RFC 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049, (MIME), and 2183
>
>
> --
> Cheers -- Tim
>
> --
> PHP Database Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Thank you for that Tim!

Best,

Karl DeSaulniers
Design Drumm
http://designdrumm.com


--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php