[Top] [All Lists]

does vacation need to define what an address looks like?

2000-08-11 16:23:55
Hi.  Ken Murchison pointed out that vacation doesn't define what an
address is supposed to look like beyond a string.

I am inclined to forbid comments, and define that an address is supposed
to be only the stuff between the <>s.  I would like to add verbage to
the draft and state that this is all that's allowed.  Ken thought the
phrase part might be interesting for GUIs, and I'm not sure how to
handle that.

Should address allow for a phrase part, or worse, comments?  If so, I
believe only the useful parts (i.e., user(_at_)domain) should be significant.

Ot's probably necessary to allow just user (i.e., no @domain) for
OSes/MTAs that have concepts of local mail.  I will probably make this a
SHOULD since it might not be appropriate for some implementations.

If an address is syntactically or semantically bogus, I think the right
thing to do is to just ignore it, and we probably need text that says
that, too.

I'm looking for a second opinion, especially on the question as to
whether phrases should be allowed/forbidden.

Incidentially, I said in Pittsburgh that I had sent in sieve-12 and
vacation-04.  I was wrong; I had sent sieve-12 to myself, and didn't
realize it until way too late.  I may have maligned the I-D editor, but
they were doing a great job as usual.  sieve-12 and vacation-04 are now
in an I-D repository near you.