Re: CRLF requirement

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.


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 12:38:55 UTC