[Email-SIG] fixing the current email module

[Barry Warsaw]

On Oct 10, 2009, at 11:23 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Right.  To riff on the RFC vs. not theme ["Barry, pick up the bass
> line, need more bottom here!"], I think we should pick a list of RFCs
> we "promise" to implement as "defining" email; if we reserve any
> structures as "too obscure for us to parse," we should say so (and
> reference chapter and verse of the Holy RFC).  On the other hand, of
> course as we discover common use cases for which precise
> specifications can be given, we should be flexible and implement them.
> But there should be no rush.

Although of course Rush is the most awesomest band EVAR.  But I'm  
slappin' and poppin' to your groove here my bruthah.

> Which RFCs?
>
> First of all, the STD 11 series (RFCs 733, 822, 2822, 5322).  Here we
> have to worry about the standard's recommended format vs. the obsolete
> format because of the Postel principle.  AFAIK, there is no reason not
> to insist on *producing* strictly RFC 5322 conformant messages, but I
> think we should implement both strict and lax parsers.  The lax parser
> is for "daily use", the strict parser for validation.
>
> Second, the basic MIME structure RFCs: 2045-2049, 2231.  (Some of
> these have been at least partially superseded by now, I think.)
>
> The mailing list header RFCs: 2369 and 2919.

Yep, yep, and yep.

> Not RFCs, per se, but an auxiliary module should provide the
> registered IANA data for the above RFCs.
>
> Strictly speaking outside of the email module, but we make use of URLs
> (RFC 3986 -- superseded?) and mimetypes data (this overlaps
> substantially with the "registered IANA data".  We need to coordinate
> with the responsible maintainers for those.
>
> Ditto coordinating with modules that we share a lot of structure with,
> the "not email but very similar" like HTTP (RFC 2616), and netnews
> (NNTP = 3397 and RFC 1036).
>
> Which extensions?
>
> Er, don't you think the above is enough for now?<wink>

Surely is, at least until that U$1M grant from the PSF comes through  
<wink>.  Oh wait, we blew that on lunch at Pycon 2009.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/email-sig/attachments/20091012/a1ac6364/attachment.pgp>