Re: Off-topic: <at>
Bruce Lilly <blilly <at> erols.com>
2005-10-11 09:54:36 GMT
On Thu October 6 2005 15:33, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
> > It probably seemed so simple when we started using it...
> Since the original form was both " <at> " and " at " it wasn't all that
> simple, even then. Having to parse several characters ahead, for
> detecting the mailbox/host separator, was a royal pain in those days.
> Not at all clean.
Worse than that. The original (see RFC 561) was <SP> AT <SP> only, and
space was subsequently permitted within words (RFC 724 et seq until RFC
2822 eliminated it) or even within atoms (RFC 733 et seq ...), so
at at at at at at at at
at <at> atatatatatat
atat <at> atatatatat
atatat <at> atatatat
at <at> atat <at> atatat
at <at> atatat <at> atat
(RFC 733 routing, syntax subsequently changed by RFC 822)
The original " at " coupled with subsequent introduction of space
within words and of routing led to unresolvable parsing ambiguities -- no