RFC Errata
RFC 5322, "Internet Message Format", October 2008
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6854
Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUPArea Assignment: app
Errata ID: 3134
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Ashley Willis
Date Reported: 2012-02-25
Rejected by: Pete Resnick
Date Rejected: 2012-04-28
Section Appendix A.5 says:
From: Pete(A nice \) chap) <pete(his account)@silly.test(his host)>
To:A Group(Some people)
:Chris Jones <c@(Chris's host.)public.example>,
joe@example.org,
John <jdoe@one.test> (my dear friend); (the end of the group)
It should say:
From: Pete(A nice \) chap) <pete(his account)@silly.test(his host)>
To:A Group(Some people)
:Chris Jones <c@(Chris's host.)public.example>,
joe@example.org,
John <jdoe@one.test> (my dear friend); (the end of the group)
Notes:
Errata 2515 and 2579 change the above text, but there is no change needed to the original RFC. The quote from Section 3.4.1 says "SHOULD NOT", not "MUST NOT" ("Comments and folding white space SHOULD NOT be used around the "@" in the addr-spec."). The example in A.5 "is aesthetically displeasing, but perfectly legal." It's meant to highlight extreme cases.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Though unstated in the text, the intention of the WG was that the examples in A.1-5 were intended to be messages that conformed to all of the MUSTs and SHOULDs of section 3. Indeed, RFC 2119 defines SHOULD NOT to mean effectively MUST NOT unless you have fully understood and weighed the reasons for choosing a different course. The description below the example says that it is "aesthetically displeasing, but perfectly legal". I don't think violating a SHOULD NOT makes it "perfectly" legal.