At 13:16 -0400 03-09-27, Bruce Lilly wrote:
A named group may suffice where the syntax permits an address
rather than a single mailbox, e.g.:
Reply-To: Bruce Lilly: <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>,
<blilly(_at_)verizon(_dot_)net>;
[obviously the phrase could use RFC 2047 encoded-words, and
an IDN could be used in any of the group mailboxes] Named
groups have been part of message syntax since RFC 724, so there
are no backwards compatibility issues (there may be broken
implementations of parsers, but that's a different matter).
That sounds like a very good idea! A pity that the group
syntax is not allowed in the "From:" header field according
to RFC2822, but one could put it into "Reply-To:" as you
suggest.
--
Jacob Palme <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/