[SpamCop-List] Re: New link obfuscation?
verdy_p at wanadoo.fr
Sun Mar 21 17:51:16 EST 2004
"GV" <nobody at spamcop.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:c3kbpl$dqu$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> And to be even more exact, RFC 1738 actually does not allow the
> user:password@ for http URLs. I am still wondering where this is actually
> introduced. The @ syntax for the login information applies basically only
> the ftp and telnet schemes. It is natural to use to also for http, but it
> still not compliant to RFC 1738 (or RFC 2616 HTTP/1.1)
Please note that RFC-Editor.org lists:
RFC1738 Uniform Resource Locators (URL), by T. Berners-Lee, L. Masinter,
M. McCahill, December 1994,
but also indicates that it has been updated by RFC1808, RFC2368, RFC2396:
RFC1808 Relative Uniform Resource Locators, by R. Fielding, June 1995.
It is not relevant for our discussions, but it is also updated by RFC2368
RFC2368 The mailto URL scheme, by P. Hoffman, L. Masinter, J. Zawinski,
July 1998 updates the two previous RFC only for the "mailto:" URI
It is not relevant for us. So use now this RFC:
RFC2396 Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax, by T.
Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter, August 1998,
which updates the two first RFC above. And you may also use also the
RFC2732 Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's, by R. Hinden, B.
Carpenter, L. Masinter, December 1999
which adds the two characters "[" and "]" as valid within the autority part,
in order to allow specifying an IPv6 address, and updates the previous
So forget RFC1738 which never gained the "standard" status, but just the
"proposed standard" status before being updated above...
More information about the SpamCop-List