➜
This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
Created on 2012-02-06 20:45 by SamB, last changed 2022-04-11 14:57 by admin. This issue is now closed.
| Messages (3) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg152772 - (view) | Author: Samuel Bronson (SamB) | Date: 2012-02-06 20:45 | |
As you can see by looking at <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822> or <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322>, RFC 2822 has been obsoleted by RFC 5322. It would probably be a good idea to update the email package to support it, if in fact anything needs changing, and to mention/link to the new RFC in the documentation. (It would probably *not* be a good idea to stop mentioning RFC 2822, though, since that's rather more well known, and the number is a bit more memorable for those who've heard of RFC 822. I'm actually a bit surprised the new one didn't get numbered 5822...) |
|||
| msg152776 - (view) | Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) *  |
Date: 2012-02-06 21:16 | |
5322 is still a draft, according to the IETF. That said, we are paying attention to 5322. |
|||
| msg153242 - (view) | Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * |
Date: 2012-02-13 02:18 | |
Hmm. I misread this. You are, in fact correct, but I don't think there is anything comprehensive to do here. As I make changes and have actually checked then against RFC 5322, I'm either changing or adding that RFC number to the comments and docs. |
|||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2022-04-11 14:57:26 | admin | set | github: 58163 |
| 2012-02-13 02:18:53 | r.david.murray | set | messages: + msg153242 |
| 2012-02-06 21:16:06 | r.david.murray | set | status: open -> closed nosy: + r.david.murray messages: + msg152776 resolution: not a bug stage: resolved |
| 2012-02-06 20:57:43 | tshepang | set | nosy:
+ tshepang |
| 2012-02-06 20:45:43 | SamB | create | |