On Fri October 22 2004 08:28, Charles Lindsey wrote:
RFC 2277 is not mandatory.
It is BCP, and as such it constrains IETF protocols, and in fact
uses RFC 2119 terminology in several places to do so, e.g.:
protocols MUST specify which parts are protocol and
which are text
RFCs 822 and 2822 clearly specify that display names are
text, not protocol.
I see nothing of relevance in RFC 3028, unless you are telling me that
implementations of RFC 3028 cannot accept messages using group syntax at
all, which would be a pretty poor situation.
It would help if you would actually read the documents that
you are referred to. RFC 3028 (a Standards Track RFC) is
quite clear:
That is, routes and group syntax are not permitted. If multiple
addresses are required, use a string list. Named groups are not used
here.
[...]
The address primitive never acts on the phrase part of an email
address, nor on comments within that address. It also never acts on
group names, although it does act on the addresses within the group
construct.
It would help even more if you would familiarize yourself with
relevant Standards Track RFCs and Standards so as to avoid
proposing cockamamie schemes.