Re: 3028bis open issue #2: unknown envelope-part names

> > So in the end, "auth" should be allowed to be there, apart from 'from'
> > and 'to'.
> I agree. In fact this is what Cyrus Sieve does already.
>
> > OK, you could allow just that one through too, but what if more such
> > envelope "extensions" appear in the future? A bit difficult but
> > still. :)
> >  
> I still think that an implementation should treat an unrecognized 
> envelope part as an error. Scripts should not be using a feature without 
> a proper require statement.
I agree wholeheartedly.

Tim