In <01KF8JCEOCBS0045PS(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
ned+ietf-822(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com writes:
I am still sending this to both lists, with Reply-To to both.
3. Now I have just found another feature/bug.
I can't speak to news, but this is an issue that email software has had to
deal with for almost two decades now.
Consider the following three msg-ids, all syntactically correct in RFC
2822:
A. <Joe_Doe(_at_)[127(_dot_)0(_dot_)0(_dot_)1]>
B. <"Joe_Doe"@[127.0.0.1]>
C. <"Joe\_Doe"@[127\.0\.0\.1]>
Question. Are those three semantically the same in RFC 2822?
Yes they are.
So are you saying, for example, that mail readers which do threading based
on the References line are programmed to take this into account? Seems a
lot of unnecessary work to me.
I have no idea what other people's code does. The code I've done normalizes.
And the amount of extra work is negligable. Indeed, given the methodology I use
it would be more work for me not to normalize.
OK, here is an experiment. The Message-ID of your mail was
<01KF8JCEOCBS0045PS(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>. I have made the
References line in
this message to be <"01KF8JCE\OCBS0045PS"@mauve.mrochek.com>.
Hands up anybody with a threading mail reader that threaded my reply as a
followup to yours (and hands down if it didn't).
Mine did. And you'll notice that the quotes are gone in the references line
used in this reply -- with no action taken on my part.
Ned