Factbites
 Where results make sense
About us   |   Why use us?   |   Reviews   |   PR   |   Contact us  

Topic: RFC 2231


Related Topics

In the News (Tue 25 Jun 19)

  
  RFC 2183   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
RFC 2183 Content-Disposition August 1997 2.1 The Inline Disposition Type A bodypart should be marked `inline' if it is intended to be displayed automatically upon display of the message.
RFC 2183 Content-Disposition August 1997 2.8 Future Extensions and Unrecognized Disposition Types In the likely event that new parameters or disposition types are needed, they should be registered with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), in the manner specified in Section 9 of this memo.
RFC 2183 Content-Disposition August 1997 2.10 Content-Disposition and the Main Message It is permissible to use Content-Disposition on the main body of an [RFC 822] message.
www.armware.dk /RFC/rfc/rfc2183.html   (2412 words)

  
 RFC 2231   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
RFC 2231 MIME Value and Encoded Word Extensions November 1997 Asterisks ("*") are reused to provide the indicator that language and character set information is present and encoding is being used.
RFC 2231 MIME Value and Encoded Word Extensions November 1997 (4) The first segment of a continuation MUST be encoded if language and character set information are given.
RFC 2231 MIME Value and Encoded Word Extensions November 1997 If and when such facilities are developed they SHOULD be used in preference to the language labeling facilities specified here.
www.armware.dk /RFC/rfc/rfc2231.html   (1956 words)

  
 RFC 2231 - MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and Continuations
Freed and Moore Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 2231 MIME Value and Encoded Word Extensions November 1997 Asterisks ("*") are reused to provide the indicator that language and character set information is present and encoding is being used.
Freed and Moore Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 2231 MIME Value and Encoded Word Extensions November 1997 (4) The first segment of a continuation MUST be encoded if language and character set information are given.
Freed and Moore Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 2231 MIME Value and Encoded Word Extensions November 1997 If and when such facilities are developed they SHOULD be used in preference to the language labeling facilities specified here.
www.packetizer.com /rfc/rfc2231   (1875 words)

  
 MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and Continuations
MIME headers, like the RFC 822 headers they often appear in, are limited to 7bit US-ASCII, and the encoded-word mechanisms of RFC 2047 are not available to parameter values.
This RFC does not discuss security issues and is not believed to raise any security issues not already endemic in electronic mail and present in fully conforming implementations of MIME.
Alvestrand, H., “Tags for the Identification of Languages,” RFC 1766, March 1995.
xml.resource.org /public/rfc/html/rfc2231.html   (1874 words)

  
 RFC 3864 - (rfc3864) - Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields
The assignment policy for such registration is "Specification Required", as defined by RFC 2434 [3], where the specification must be published in an RFC (standards-track, experimental, informational or historic), or as an "Open Standard" in the sense of RFC 2026, section 7 [1].
Publication in an RFC or other form of Open Standard document (per RFC 2026 [1], section 7) is sufficient grounds for publication in the permanent registry.
Best Current Practice [Page 11] RFC 3864 Header Field Registration September 2004 It is intended that entries in the Permanent Message Header Field Registry may be used in the construction of URNs (per RFC 2141 [13]) which have particular requirements for uniqueness and persistence (per RFC 1737 [8]).
www.rfcsearch.org /rfcview/RFC/3864.html   (3948 words)

  
 gmane.ietf.rfc822
Instead, RFC 2912 claims to depend on RFC 822, where the definition of a comment is absolutely clear, so RFC 2912 would have had no excuse at all for trying to modify it.
RFC 822 and 2822 did not deliberately leave open the possibility for future header fields to redefine the comment syntax.
This is a fatal flaw in RFC 2912, and it's somewhat surprising that it was not noticed before.
blog.gmane.org /gmane.ietf.rfc822/month=20021201   (1482 words)

  
 RFC 2047   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
RFC 2047 specifies a standard way of encoding non US-ASCII characters into a string that identifies both the character set to use and the actual characters.
This encoding is necessary in the first place because many characters in non-English languages can not be represented in 7-bit ASCII.
There are some mail clients that are not RFC 2047 Compliant, if you are using one of this clients you are strongly encuraged to change your mail client or to update it to a compliant version:
www.ebroadcast.com.au /lookup/encyclopedia/rf/RFC_2047.html   (180 words)

  
 MIME @ Saint Roch Tree (tm)
RFC 1437 - The Extension of MIME Content-Types to a New Medium.
RFC 1496 - Rules for downgrading messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84 when MIME content-types are present in the messages.
RFC 2231 - MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and Continuations.
www.saintrochtree.com /zones/it/links/prot-tcp-7-mime-rfc.htm   (654 words)

  
 Re: Last Call: 'Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures' t
RFC 2231 > > > amends normative reference RFC 2045) or by errata maintained by the > > > RFC Editor.
I'd agree with this if there was a reference to this aspect of RFC 2045 in the current document but there wasn't one.
The RFC > Editor has a search engine that will display errata for a specified > RFC, but unfortunately it doesn't provide a URI that can be used to > reference the RFC-specific errata.
www.mail-archive.com /ietf@ietf.org/msg20146.html   (1481 words)

  
 rfc2231 - RFC
Freed & Moore Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 2231 MIME Value and Encoded Word Extensions November 1997 Asterisks ("*") are reused to provide the indicator that language and character set information is present and encoding is being used.
Freed & Moore Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 2231 MIME Value and Encoded Word Extensions November 1997 (4) The first segment of a continuation MUST be encoded if language and character set information are given.
Freed & Moore Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 2231 MIME Value and Encoded Word Extensions November 1997 If and when such facilities are developed they SHOULD be used in preference to the language labeling facilities specified here.
www.masterscripts.de /rfc/rfc2231.html   (1825 words)

  
 Important RFCs - ASSP Wiki   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
These RFCs dictate how e-mail is structured and flows between servers, as well as the roles that DNS plays in both how MTAs are identified and how it is used to scrutinize a connecting server for anti-spam purposes.
Overview: This RFC is an introduction to the Domain Name System (DNS), and omits many details which can be found in a companion RFC, "Domain Names - Implementation and Specification" (RFC 1035).
Overview: This RFC describes the details of the domain system and protocol, and assumes that the reader is familiar with the concepts discussed in a companion RFC, "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities" (RFC 1034).
www.asspsmtp.org /wiki/Important_RFC's   (1010 words)

  
 RFC ERRATA   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
Although every published RFC has been submitted to careful proofreading by the RFC Editor and the author (s), errors do sometimes go undetected.
As a service to the readers of RFCs, this page contains a list of technical and editorial errors that have been reported to the RFC Editor and verified by the authors or the IESG.
RFC 2231, "MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and Continuations", November 1997
www.rfc-editor.org /cgi-bin/errataSearch.pl?rfc=2231   (172 words)

  
 RFC 2388 (rfc2388)
Each part is expected to contain a content-disposition header [RFC 2183] where the disposition type is "form-data", and where the disposition contains an (additional) parameter of "name", where the value of that parameter is the original field name in the form.
Masinter Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 2388 multipart/form-data August 1998 4.2 Sets of files If the value of a form field is a set of files rather than a single file, that value can be transferred together using the "multipart/mixed" format.
For example, a form might Masinter Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 2388 multipart/form-data August 1998 request 'spam' information to be sent to an unintended third party, or private information to be sent to someone that the user might not actually intend.
www.cse.ohio-state.edu /cgi-bin/rfc/rfc2388.html   (1902 words)

  
 gmane.ietf.rfc822
I want to understand exactly where FWS and comments may occur under RFC 2231 parameters, so that I may describe it correctly in Usefor.
So, prior to 2231, a parameter can be ()token()=()token() or ()token()=()"quoted-string"() Under 2231, we can also have an asterisk, possibly followed by DIGITS, between the token and the '='.
RFC 2231 is not at all clear on this.
blog.gmane.org /gmane.ietf.rfc822/day=20030122   (330 words)

  
 RFCs 2200 - 2299 Index   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
The solution revolves around treating the broadcast problem as a special case of multicast, where every host in the subnet or cluster is a member of the group.
Initially developed for IP over ATM, the RFC 2022 (MARS) model is also applicable to other NBMA networks that provide the equivalent of switched, point to multipoint connections.
RFC 2022 is not required over NBMA networks that offer Ethernet-like group addressing functionality.
www.potaroo.net /ietf/rfc2200-2299.html   (5256 words)

  
 IP-Doc
RFCs are published by the RFC Editor, who is supported by the ISOC, but is under the general direction of the IAB.
The RFCs are most remarkable for how well they work - they manage to have neither the ambiguities that are usually rife in informal specifications, nor the committee-perpetrated misfeatures that often haunt formal standards, and they define a network that has grown to truly worldwide proportions.
RFC 1, entitled "Host Software", was written by Steve Crocker from the University of California, Los Angeles, and published on April 7, 1969.
ip-doc.com   (2214 words)

  
 [No title]
The language the text is written in is needed for this to be done correctly.
A discussion of the meanings of these terms appears in [RFC- 2119].
The ABNF given in RFC 2047 for encoded-words is: encoded-word := "=?" charset "?" encoding "?" encoded-text "?=" This specification changes this ABNF to: encoded-word := "=?" charset ["*" language] "?" encoded-text "?=" 8.
www.ietf.org /rfc/rfc2231.txt   (1901 words)

  
 RFC 2231
RFC 2047 provides support for non-US-ASCII character sets in RFC 822 message header comments, phrases, and any unstructured text field.
Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples", RFC 2049, December 1996.
Weider, C., Preston, C., Simonsen, K., Alvestrand, H., Atkinson, R., Crispin, M., and P. Svanberg, "Report from the IAB Character Set Workshop", RFC 2130, April 1997.
www.process.com /techsupport/pmdf/rfc/rfc2231.html   (1761 words)

  
 Interface Reference - nsIMIMEHeaderParam
Given a header parameter, decodes RFC 2047 style encoding (if it's not obtained from RFC 2231 encoding), converts it to UTF-8 and returns the result in UTF-8 if an attempt to extract charset info.
Otherwise, returns the input header value (in whatever encoding) as it is except that RFC 822 (using backslash) quotation is stripped off.
Given a header value, decodes RFC 2047-style encoding and returns the decoded header value in UTF-8 if either it's RFC-2047-encoded or defaultCharset is given.
www.xulplanet.com /references/xpcomref/ifaces/nsIMIMEHeaderParam.html   (763 words)

  
 New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
Of course, the length limitations must be balanced between the charset tag, the language tag and the encoded-word itself.
The review/registration process for RFC 3066 registrations does not impose pre-defined limits that implementers of RFC 3066 can assume in their parsers.
I do > not think it is sufficient merely to state the fact that > there are limits, with or without a pointer to RFC 2231 as > an example.
www.alvestrand.no /pipermail/ietf-languages/2004-December/002497.html   (643 words)

  
 MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and Continuations [RFC-Ref]
RFC 2231: MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word Ex...
This memo defines extensions to the RFC 2045
This memo also defines an extension to the encoded words defined in RFC 2047
rfc-ref.org /RFC-TEXTS/2231/index.html   (242 words)

  
 [No title]
The value supplied for a part may need to be encoded and the "content-transfer-encoding" header supplied if the value does not conform to the default encoding.
The original local file name may be supplied as well, either as a "filename" parameter either of the "content-disposition: form-data" header or, in the case of multiple files, in a "content-disposition: file" header of the subpart.
While this is primarily an issue for the representation and interpretation of forms themselves, rather than the data representation of the result of form transmission, the transportation of private information must be done in a way that does not expose it to unwanted prying.
www.ietf.org /rfc/rfc2388.txt   (1902 words)

  
 RFC 4249
RFC3798] is an example of how this might be handled (however, because that specification requires deployed RFC 2046-conforming implementations to be modified, it is not strictly backward compatible).
IANA should also closely coordinate with the RFC Editor so that registries are set up and properly referenced at the time of publication of an RFC that refers to such a registry.
In spite of the fact that the author's given name may also be the surname of other individuals, and the fact that the author's surname may also be a given name for some females, the author is, and has always been, male.
www.apps.ietf.org /rfc/rfc4249.html   (2818 words)

  
 Usenet Format Mailing List: RFC 2047/2231 and User-Agent
RFC 2047/2231 into our draft is too much dependent on handwaving.
Newsgroups-header is not one of the acceptable contexts of [RFC
same in the case of the [RFC 2047] and [RFC 2231] encodings.
www.imc.org /ietf-usefor/2002/Oct/0363.html   (1298 words)

  
 MIME - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MIME is specified in five RFCs : RFC 2045, RFC 2046, RFC 2047, RFC 2048 and RFC 2077.
The basic format of Internet e-mail is defined in RFC 2822, which is an updated version of RFC 822.
Since RFC 2822, message header names and values are always ASCII characters; values that contain non-ASCII data must use the MIME encoded-word syntax (RFC 2047) instead of a literal string.
en.wikipedia.org /wiki/MIME   (2327 words)

  
 email.Utils
The inverse of parseaddr(), this takes a 2-tuple of the form (realname, email_address) and returns the string value suitable for an RFC 2822 From, To or Cc header.
If the first element of pair is false, then the second element is returned unmodified.
Optional timeval if given is a floating point time value as accepted by gmtime() and localtime(), otherwise the current time is used.
epydoc.sourceforge.net /stdlib/email.Utils-module.html   (300 words)

  
 IETF Request For Comments (RFCs)
The level of standardization that an RFC reaches is determined not only by "how good" the RFC is, but by how widely it is implemented and tested.
Some RFCs are not solid standards, but they nonetheless document technologies that are of great value to the Internet and thus should be used as guidelines for implementing Internet mail programs.
The official rules for how RFCs are made and how things become standards are stated in RFC 2026.
www.imc.org /rfcs.html   (1222 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)

Factbites
  About us   |   Why use us?   |   Reviews   |   Press   |   Contact us  
Copyright © 2005-2007 www.factbites.com Usage implies agreement with terms.