
	Where results make sense

Topic: RFC 822

	RFC 1137 - Mapping Between Full RFC 822 and RFC 822 with
		When a message is transferred from full RFC 822 to restricted RFC 822, and address forms used in full RFC 822 are involved, message loss may occur (e.g., it may not be possible to return an error message).
		This RFC describes a quoting mechanism which may be used to map between full RFC 822 and restricted RFC 822, in order to alleviate this problem.
		Space is given a single character encoding, due to its (expected) frequency of use, and backslash as the RFC 822 single quote character.
	ip-doc.com /rfc/rfc1137 (692 words)

	RFC2045 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-04)
		RFC 2045 Internet Message Bodies November 1996 In general, the top-level media type is used to declare the general type of data, while the subtype specifies a specific format for that type of data.
		RFC 2045 Internet Message Bodies November 1996 Note that the definition of "tspecials" is the same as the RFC 822 definition of "specials" with the addition of the three characters "/", "?", and "=", and the removal of ".".
		RFC 2045 Internet Message Bodies November 1996 It should be noted that most media types are defined in terms of octets rather than bits, so that the mechanisms described here are mechanisms for encoding arbitrary octet streams, not bit streams.
	rfc.net /rfc2045.html (8102 words)

	RFC 2822 (rfc2822) - Internet Message Format
		RFC 2822: Is this going to be updated to detail the use of addresses in the format/style...
		RFC 2822: Not having a requirement for the "To:" field is ridiculous.
		RFC 2822: aem abdualmohsn ahmad almedrahe yemen sana.a new unifirste p.o.box13508 til...
	www.faqs.org /rfcs/rfc2822 (10975 words)

	(MIME) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text
		RFC 2045 describes a mechanism for denoting textual body parts which are coded in various character sets, as well as methods for encoding such body parts as sequences of printable US-ASCII characters.
		The notation of RFC 822 is used, with the exception that white space characters MUST NOT appear between components of an 'encoded-word'.
		An 'encoded-word' may replace a 'text' token (as defined by RFC 822) in any Subject or Comments header field, any extension message header field, or any MIME body part field for which the field body is defined as '*text'.
	www.mhonarc.org /~ehood/MIME/2047/rfc2047.html (3885 words)

	RFC 822 - (rfc822) - STANDARD FOR THE FORMAT OF ARPA INTERNET TEXT MESSAGES
		The specification of RFC #733 took place over the course of one year, using the ARPANET mail environment, itself, to provide an on-going forum for discussing the capabilities to be included.
		August 13, 1982 - 22 - RFC #822 Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages o If there is a "From" field, but no "Reply-To" field, the reply should be sent to the address(es) indicated in the "From" field.
		RFC #733's use of multiple at-signs ("@") was intended as a general syntax for indicating routing and/or hierarchical addressing.
	www.rfcsearch.org /rfcview/RFC/822.html (9565 words)

	Internet E-mail address format (RFC 822) explained
		RFC 822 has been superseded by RFC 2822.
		Note that the word mailbox is very often used (outside RFC 822) to refer to a file to which a system's E-mail software appends any incoming E-mail sent to an address (normally, a user).
		So there's a connection, but in RFC 822, mailbox is a syntactic and logical term which identifies a recipient rather than a store or a set of messages.
	www.cs.tut.fi /~jkorpela/rfc/822addr.html (1241 words)

	RFC 822 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		RFC 822 was an IETF Request for Comments document, released on August 13, 1982 which defined the format of SMTP email.
		It was obsoleted in April 2001 by RFC 2822.
		This page was last modified 16:51, 6 May 2005.
	en.wikipedia.org /?title=RFC_0822 (64 words)

	RFC 822 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-04)
		The only syntactic units August 13, 1982 - 14 - RFC #822 Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages which requires preservation of case information are: - text - qtext - dtext - ctext - quoted-pair - local-part, except "Postmaster" When matching any other syntactic unit, case is to be ignored.
		When the sending host uses a destination address specification that the receiving host reinterprets, by August 13, 1982 - 20 - RFC #822 Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages expansion or transformation, the receiving host may wish to record the original specification, using the "for" parameter.
		DIFFERENCES FROM RFC #733 The following summarizes the differences between this stan- dard and the one specified in Arpanet Request for Comments #733, "Standard for the Format of ARPA Network Text Messages".
	personal.bgsu.edu /~norton/peeves/poop/rfc822.html (9626 words)

	(MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies
		A Content-Type header field, generalized from RFC 1049, which can be used to specify the media type and subtype of data in the body of a message and to fully specify the native representation (canonical form) of such data.
		Note that the definition of "tspecials" is the same as the RFC 822 definition of "specials" with the addition of the three characters "/", "?", and "=", and the removal of ".".
		Default RFC 822 messages without a MIME Content-Type header are taken by this protocol to be plain text in the US-ASCII character set, which can be explicitly specified as:
	www.mhonarc.org /~ehood/MIME/2045/rfc2045.html (8095 words)

	rfc822
		Therefore, a specification such as: Full\ Name@Domain is not legal and must be specified as: "Full Name"@Domain August 13, 1982 - 11 - RFC #822 Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages 3.4.2.
		For example, when a copy of mail is sent to the member of a distribution list, this parameter may be used to record the original address that was used to specify the list.
		For some systems, in the case of abbreviated reference to the local and subordinate sub-domains, it may be possible to specify only one reference within the domain part and place the other, subordinate name-domain references within the local-part.
	ietfreport.isoc.org /idref/rfc822 (9551 words)

	[No title]
		Once a field has been unfolded, it may be viewed as being com- posed of a field-name followed by a colon (":"), followed by a field-body, and terminated by a carriage-return/line-feed.
		The local-part address unit, which refers to this agent, is expected to be a computer system term, and not (for example) a generalized person reference which can be used outside the network text message context.
		Such a specification would be acceptable to address parsers which conform to RFC #733, but do not support this newer Internet standard.
	asg.web.cmu.edu /rfc/rfc822.html (9555 words)

	[No title]
		Alvestrand Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 3282 Content Language Headers May 2002 A prerequisite for any such function is a means of labelling the information content with an identifier for the language that is used in this information content, such as is defined by [TAGS].
		The RFC 822 EBNF of the Content-Language header is: Content-Language = "Content-Language" ":" 1#Language-tag In the more strict RFC 2234 ABNF: Content-Language = "Content-Language" ":" [CFWS] Language-List Language-List = Language-Tag [CFWS] *("," [CFWS] Language-Tag [CFWS]) The Content-Language header may list several languages in a comma- separated list.
		The CFWS construct is intended to function like the whitespace convention in RFC 822, which means also that one can place parenthesized comments anywhere in the language sequence, or use continuation lines.
	www.rfc-editor.org /rfc/rfc3282.txt (1280 words)

	DNS Stuff: DNS tools, DNS hosting tests, WHOIS, traceroute, ping, and other network and domain name tools. (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-04)
		August 13, 1982 - 1 - RFC #822
		August 13, 1982 - 2 - RFC #822
		August 13, 1982 - 3 - RFC #822
	www.dnsstuff.com /pages/rfc822.htm (9872 words)

	[No title]
		Freed & Borenstein Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 2045 Internet Message Bodies November 1996 In general, the top-level media type is used to declare the general type of data, while the subtype specifies a specific format for that type of data.
		Freed & Borenstein Standards Track [Page 16] RFC 2045 Internet Message Bodies November 1996 It should be noted that most media types are defined in terms of octets rather than bits, so that the mechanisms described here are mechanisms for encoding arbitrary octet streams, not bit streams.
		Because quoted-printable data is generally assumed to be line- oriented, it is to be expected that the representation of the breaks between the lines of quoted-printable data may be altered in transport, in the same manner that plain text mail has always been altered in Internet mail when passing between systems with differing newline conventions.
	www.rfc-editor.org /rfc/rfc2045.txt (8342 words)

	RFC 822: Standard for the Format of Arpa Internet Text Messages
		RFC 822: Standard for the Format of Arpa Internet Text Messages
		RFC # 822 Obsoletes: RFC #733 (NIC #41952)
		Ken L. Harrenstien, of SRI International, was responsible for recoding the BNF into an augmented BNF that makes the representation smaller and easier to understand.
	www.w3.org /Protocols/rfc822 (9147 words)

	Pantek - Expert Linux and Open Source Services: : RFC #1495: Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822 Message Bodies. H. ... (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-04)
		Use of electronic-mail in the Internet is defined primarily by one Alvestrand, Kille, Miles, Rose & Thompson [Page 1] RFC 1495 MHS/RFC-822 Message Body Mapping August 1993 document, STD-11, RFC-822 [1], which defines the standard format for the exchange of messages.
		If the IPMS.Body consists of more than one body part, then the RFC- 822 message body is constructed as a multipart/mixed content-type, unless all of the body parts are messages, in which case it is mapped to a multipart/digest content-type.
		Alvestrand, Kille, Miles, Rose & Thompson [Page 6] RFC 1495 MHS/RFC-822 Message Body Mapping August 1993 The IPM.subject fields for the various types are: mixed: "Multipart Message" alternative: "Alternate Body Parts containing the same information" digest: "Message Digest" parallel: "Body Parts to be interpreted in parallel" 3.2.2.
	www.pantek.com /library/general/rfc/rfc1495.html (1949 words)

	Zvon - RFC 987 [Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822] - Chapter 5 -- Protocol Elements
		Some of these defaults may be changed by the values in the RFC 822
		If it is not, the function may optionally be implemented by the gateway: that is, the gateway should hold the message until the time specified in the protocol element.
		The entire status report is mapped into the body of the RFC 822
	www.zvon.org /tmRFC/RFC987/Output/chapter5.html (2429 words)

	RFC 822 (rfc822)
		Subject : Re: The Syntax in the RFC Sender : KSecy@Other-Host Reply-To : Sam.Irving@Reg.Organization To : George Jones
		August 13, 1982 - 39 - RFC #822 Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages B. Some mail-reading software systems may wish to perform only minimal processing, ignoring the internal syntax of structured field-bodies and treating them the same as unstructured-field- bodies.
		August 13, 1982 - 44 - RFC #822 Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages field = field-name ":" [ field-body ] CRLF fields = dates ; Creation time, source ; author id & one 1destination ; address required optional-field ; others optional field-body = field-body-contents [CRLF LWSP-char field-body] field-body-contents =
	www.cse.ohio-state.edu /cgi-bin/rfc/rfc822.html (9971 words)

	[No title]
		August 13, 1982 - 9 - RFC #822 Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages 3.3.
		August 13, 1982 - 35 - RFC #822 Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages APPENDIX A. Alfred Neuman
		= ; (42, 34.) August 13, 1982 - 47 - RFC #822
	www.ietf.org /rfc/rfc822.txt (9971 words)

	RFC 822
		More than twenty individuals, from across the country, participated in the original discussion.
		AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO
		Complete HTML RFC (TAR, TGZ, or ZIP format)
	www.freesoft.org /CIE/RFC/822 (310 words)

	RFC822 \| 2003-04-17 \| The Well-Formed Web (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-04)
		Now those headers had their start in RFC 822, which is, and this is my point, one of the unsung pillars of the internet.
		But here it is today, the meta-data transport of choice for HTTP, SMTP and MIME.
		Now it has been updated from it's humble 7 bit ASCII roots with RFC 2822, and MIME has it's own cleaned up version, but they all owe their roots to 822.
	wellformedweb.org /news/RFC822 (480 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)