* Bjørn Mork <bmork@dod.no> writes:

  > Steve Youngs <steve@youngs.au.com> writes:
  >> * Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:
  >> 
  >> > On Sun, Jan 09 2005, Steve Youngs wrote:
  >> >> The default settings should give a User-Agent header similar to the
  >> >> one in this message's headers.
  >> 
  >> > | User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) SXEmacs/22.1.1 "Aston Martin" (linux)
  >> 
  >> > Is a quoted string like "Aston Martin" allowed in RFC 2616?  
  >> 
  >> ,----[ from RFC 2616 ]

[...]

  >> Going by that, using quoted text "like this" should be fine.

  > No, it isn't.  quoting more from RFC 2616:

  >        token          = 1*<any CHAR except CTLs or separators>
  >        separators     = "(" | ")" | "<" | ">" | "@"
  >                       | "," | ";" | ":" | "\" | <">
  >                       | "/" | "[" | "]" | "?" | "="
  >                       | "{" | "}" | SP | HT

  >> > Upto now, we had it inside the bracket:
  >> > | [...] XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, berkeley-unix)
  >> 
  >> Yep, however, IMHO, this...
  >> 
  >> SXEmacs/22.1.1 (Aston Martin, berkeley-unix)
  >> 
  >> doesn't look anywhere near as nice as...
  >> 
  >> SXEmacs/22.1.1 "Aston Martin" (berkeley-unix)

  > Maybe.  But it doesn't really matter since the first version uses a
  > perfectly legal comment while the second is an invalid User-Agent
  > field.

OK, now I'm really confused.  Because going by what you quoted about
tokens and separators, aren't both of them invalid? And if not, why
not?

Also, what the hell does RFC 2616 - "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
HTTP/1.1" have to do with email headers?  I honestly don't understand
that at all?

BTW, I really don't mind whether we use `"codename" (platform)'
or `(codename, platform)'.

-- 
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
|                   Te audire no possum.                   |
|             Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.             |
|----------------------------------<steve@youngs.au.com>---|