Re: [Full-Disclosure] another product affected by recent MS IE '@' patch

[mescsa <mescsa@yahoo.com>]

Nick FitzGerald <nick@virus-l.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ...
> and, most importantly, you should note that the "userinfo" part is 
> _outside_ the definition of "hostport", and thus outside the "host" 
> part.  Ergo, HTTP URLs are explicitly (and presumably deliberately) 
> defined to _NOT_ support "userinfo" data so any implementation that 
> does is non-compliant.

This is your interpretation of section 3.2.2 of RFC 2616.

However section 3.2.1 of the same document states that
"For definitive information on URL syntax and semantics," you
should "see 'Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax
and Semantics,' RFC 2396."

Since there are neither any MUST NOTs in RFC 2616 nor any apparent
technical reasons why userinfo should be banned from HTTP-URLs, it
is clear that not everyone will follow your reasoning. That's why
implementors have choosen to make use of the userinfo-part in
services, protocols and user agents.

Regards,
mescsa

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html