Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: harald.alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: CRLF (was: Re: Is X.400 good for international mail?)
Message-ID: <1991Jan18.212538.10245@ugle.unit.no>
Date: 21 Jan 91 01:21:24 GMT
References: <9101150218.AA10632@polya.Eng.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: harald.alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no
Organization: ELAB-RUNIT, SINTEF, Norway
Lines: 27
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
x-attn: jns
ReSent-From: Jerry Sweet <mhsnews-request@ICS.UCI.EDU>
ReSent-To: mhsnews@ICS.UCI.EDU

In article <9101150218.AA10632@polya.Eng.Sun.COM>, pv@eng.sun.COM (Peter
Vanderbilt) writes (as an example of what not to do):

|>
|>     Requiring the use of one of CRLF or LF as line delimiters (rather
|>     than allowing both).
|>
Just to be sure that nobody will think that both are allowed now:

I fought a digging-through-the-standards action last week, and the standard
referenced by X.400 (IA5) plainly states that the LF alone "moves the printing
position to the same position on the next line".
It has been unchanged at least since 1980.

So it is perfectly legal to
                           write your messages with
                                                   LFs only,
but the formatting
                  is required to look
                                     like this when you print it.
(BTW, RFC-821/822 requires CRLF.......)


                   Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Harald.Alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no
C=no;PRMD=uninett;O=sintef;OU=elab-runit;S=alvestrand;G=harald
+47 7 59 70 94