Also RFC 6854. It just allows group support in some header
fields that 5322 doesn't. I bring it up because it was
proposed in March 2013, so apparently there's still interest
in developing group support. (I don't bring it up because
I think it's a good idea.)
Fair enough ... looking back at that very brief discussion, I think fixing
that for us was very simple.
email headers have what is known as "group" support. Specifically, you
can do something like this:
To: groupname: a, b, c;
nmh handles this the same way, if there's no need for the
trailing semicolon:
To: groupname: a, b, c
Technically, the semicolon is required by the standard. post(1) will insert
one if it doesn't exist. Also, I forgot to mention this with Ralph's
message, but as I read it the example he posted:
To: cow-orkers: tom, dick, harry; xyzzy
is incorrect. It should be:
To: cow-orkers: tom, dick, harry;, xyzzy
Although it seems we clean this up when you get it wrong; how about that!
After seeing your later messages, maybe that's a surprise.
I don't know if there's a way for nmh to put a non-blind group
in a message.
Currently, there is not. Like I said, it's been that way since at least
1985, and I haven't seen any complaints just yet :-/
I vote for just updating the documentation. Because the
trailing semicolon isn't required, maybe we shouldn't call
it group support, just blind list? And maybe that would
avoid Ralph's objection?
I'm not sure how to write some documentation here that is clear; I
prefer using RFC termology whenever possible, so I'd still like to
say "group".
Also, this might be related to the way I fixed part of this bug:
http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?15604
which reported that the last member of a blind list in an MH
alias file wasn't expanded. The fix was to remove the
trailing semicolon from the documentation. Now I can guess
where it came from. I don't see a need to revisit that
because this is for the alias file, not in the draft. So
there's not an issue with non-related addresses following
the alias on a line.
Hm, so you never figured out the root cause? I mean, in theory it SHOULD
have worked fine. But having just dealt with this for the RFC 2047 encoder,
I can see it's easy to get it wrong.
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers