• From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>
• To: David Lee <dlee@c...>
• Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:40:09 -0400

On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 17:40 +0000, David Lee wrote:
> IMHO this design suffers from merging of layers.
> The FROM address does NOT include the CR/LF, 
> The SMTP payload protocol does.

+1

Also note that tools may normalize line endings in incoming data, e.g.
to \n or to \r, and also that some mail transport agents may incorrectly
send mail over SMTP with just newlines there.

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
Co-author, 5th edition of "Beginning XML", Wrox, Summer 2012

• References:
  • Why does validation fail with a named ENTITY for carriage returnand line feed?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: Why does validation fail with a named ENTITY forcarriage return and line feed?
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: Why does validation fail with a named ENTITY for carriage return and line feed?
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • RE: Why does validation fail with a named ENTITY forcarriage return and line feed?
    • From: David Lee <dlee@c...>