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

sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net writes:
> The implementations I've seen use the "for" only if there is one 
> address.  Isn't it already constrained to one mailbox?
Sort of. Sane implementations constrain it to one mailbox. Must not 
reveal bcc and so on and so forth.
I think my opinion is that since other concerns constrain it to one 
mailbox and the syntax is broken except in the single-mailbox case, the 
syntax should constrain it, too.
Arnt