[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2821bis: received: ... for clause

2007-06-13 22:44:30

At 09:38 12-06-2007, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
The 'for' production is incorrect as it stands. "Received: .... for tony(_at_)att(_dot_); ..." is legal according to 2821. Oops. There are 2-3 ways out of this:
 - constrain 'for' to one address
 - introduce a separator:
   - either FWS
   - or "," FWS.

My preference is to constrain it to one address. I cannot remember seeing production softwaret that inserts multiple addresses on purpose, so IMO this can be classified as an unused feature and dropped. (I checked 280k received fields just now and found none.)

The implementations I've seen use the "for" only if there is one address. Isn't it already constrained to one mailbox?