Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <4159F346(_dot_)9030204(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
Try RFCs 1958 and 2277, paying attention to the difference between
protocol elements and text.
Yes, using "LIST" a keyword in group syntax is not the most perfect
solution, but then we are not living in a perfect world.
[...]
I don't think we are in a position seriously to consider new syntax for
To:, Cc: and Reply-To.
Then why have you proposed such a change -- that's exactly what changing
non-protocol text to "a keyword" would do?
I have proposed a solution that could work.
No, you've proposed fundamentally changing fields in a way that is extremely
unlikely to work; a way that depends on guesswork, a way that invites
confusion and ambiguity. And it does noting at all to address the
fundamental issues, viz. that an author needs to provide a clear indication
of where he wishes responses to be sent.