[Top] [All Lists]

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

2007-06-14 08:40:43

--On Thursday, June 14, 2007 09:35 +0200 Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt(_at_)oryx(_dot_)com> wrote:

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.

Tony needs to make a ruling, but I thought we had already agreed to a one-address restriction and a syntax for Opt-info that was, more or less,
    [Via] [With] [ID] [For] [Additional-registered-clauses]

It is on the list as Issue 37 in any event.

Would it help if I redistributed the list?