In <0IuNcgafr+HKBVb22bwylw(_dot_)md5(_at_)prosecco(_dot_)oryx(_dot_)com> Arnt
Gulbrandsen <arnt(_at_)gulbrandsen(_dot_)priv(_dot_)no> writes:
Bart Schaefer writes:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:47:24 -0500, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
furthermore, you don't seem willing to accept or act on negative
results, as evidenced by your continued insistence on using LIST:
despite having been informed that it confuses one widely used mail
user agent.
I do not recall any such confusion having been reported in the past, but I
see we have one now:
It confuses Gmail, too. Gmail displays the recipients (and addresses
the replies) as LIST, ietf-822
I suppose as a well-behaved beta-tester I should report that as a bug.
Yes, clearly a bug. Anyway, the discussion of my LIST idea have finished
way way back, so I have now removed that bit from my script.
Perhaps. But group syntax has been so little used in the past years that
IMO it's better to kill the syntax than to try to support it. As a
feature, group syntax simply isn't carrying its load.
Indeed. It leads to confusion as to which headers are <mailbox-list> and
which are <address-list>, and I have never seen it used for its intended
purpose of addressing groups. Only for enabling an empty mailbox-list.
IMO, the best option would be to issue a short RFC saying:
1. Mail senders SHOULD NOT generate group syntax.
2. Mail receivers are urged to test that they can parse empty groups,
since several current senders generate that, e.g. "To:
unknown-recipients:;" and "To: ietf-announce:;".
Comments?
What is really wanted is an allowance to have a genuine empty list, as in
To: <>
or else to permit the To header to be omitted entirely.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave,
CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5