Re: CRLF requirement

On 2014-06-30 14:23, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Do you have any evidence that accepting anything but CRLF is needed in
>> practice? If yes, we'd probably want to add something to the prose about the
>> message format.
>
> I thought the party line was rough consensus and running code? The
> most widely deployed clients exhibit this behavior. I doubt they're
> willing to change that, but I guess you can try make them during
> conformance testing.

Can you please clarify what kind of change you want?

The spec already says:

"Although the line terminator for the start-line and header fields is 
the sequence CRLF, a recipient MAY recognize a single LF as a line 
terminator and ignore any preceding CR."

Do you think we need to allow single CRs as well?

Best regards, Julian

Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 12:38:17 UTC