ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "for" clause on Received: header field

2007-04-30 01:38:22

Kari Hurtta wrote:

| Is multiple mailboxes ever used on "for" -clause ?
| Syntax for it is quite inconsistent between standards.
 
But perhaps implementation and interoperability report
tells?

More "implementation" than "interoperabiity" if I understood
section 3.8.2 correctly, servers aren't supposed to look 
"into" the timestamp lines they get.  A big point for DKIM,
and a small point against EAI's "for8".

Previous standards (RFC 821, 822) did not allowed several
addresses, so is these multiple mailboxes on "for" clause
never implemented?

If it's implemented it's not better than Apparently-To, as
noted in 2821 4.4, but the Apparently-To got a "SHOULD NOT".
Why allow an in essence identical damage in the for-clause ?

Just wondering :-)

Me too.  I've just tested to send a mail from GMail to two
local parts of @xyzzy, and _apparently_ both Google and my 
ISP noted only the first RCPT TO in the for-clause.  Maybe
that's too naive as test (?)  I've no clue what Google uses
as their mailout (something that uses DKIM and Domainkeys),
at my ISP it's Exim (two versions).

Frank