On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 00:18:59 +0900, "Stephen J. Turnbull" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
R. David Murray writes:
Full validation is something that is currently a "future objective".
I didn't mean it to be anything else. :-)
There's infrastructure to do it, but not all of the necessary knowledge has been coded in yet.
Well, I assume you already know that there's no way that can ever happen (at least until we abandon messaging entirely): new RFCs will continue to be published. So it needs to be an extensible mechanism, a "pipeline" of checks (Barry would say a "chain of rules", I think).
My idea was to encode as much of the current known rules as as we have the stomach for, and to have a validation flag that you turn on if you want to check your message against those standards. But without that flag the code allows you to set arbitrary parameters and headers.
As you say, an extensible mechanism for the validators is a good idea. So I take it back that the infrastructure is in place, since extensibility doesn't exist for that feature yet.