Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Ken Murchison writes:
>> True, the test against the Cc field fails, but when given a list of
>> headers/strings, a logical OR is applied, so matching against To is
>> sufficient for the test to succeed.
>
> Ah, now I see what you're saying. But 3028 consistently talks about
> "address" as a single test with multiple arguments, not as a collection
> of single-argument tests, so "the test evaluates to false" is less than
> ideal phrasing.
>
> 3598bis is in the RFC-Editor's queue, isn't it? Too late to change
> anything substantive. I suppose a minor rephrasing could be done during
> auth48. Perhaps ", then the :detail doesn't match anything" or something
> like that. Not terribly important. Change it if you think that's both
> appropriate and permissible.
Anyone want to second this suggestion?
Changing it to say "fails to match" or something similar seems fine to me.
Ned