On Fri 13/Aug/2021 04:49:44 +0200 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Ned Freed <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com> said:
It's also different in that the use of the field in those MTAs is strictly for
loop detection, which makes the format a local matter. The draft aims for a
different - and in some cases disjoint - logging usage, which really calls for
a common syntax.
As far as we know, all of the existing usage is for loop detection, so it would
be reasonable to say the contents of the header is a token or sequence of tokens
with semantics local to the MTA that adds the header. I suppose we could say
something
like what we say with Message-ID, to use a local domain to avoid collisions.
What is not reasonable is to overload this existing header with new,
incompatible
semantics and no way to tell the difference.
Without formal overloading, there is no reason to exclude the
possibility that an MTA records (virtual) mailbox addresses in that
field. Local MTA scripts can use the values of Delivered-To: fields,
if they can be interpreted correctly. Also MUAs can take advantage of
any mailbox values found there, as a sponger. For example,
Thunderbird has a configuration item named catchAllHeaders which can
be set to a list such as "envelope-to, x-original-to, to, cc,
delivered-to".
How about:
"Delivered-To:" FWS addr-spec / opaque-tokens FWS CRLF
?
After all, interoperability with MUAs and local operations is one of
the experimental goals.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp