Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 10:16:41 -0500
From: Ken Hornstein <kenh(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>
Message-ID:
<201312031516(_dot_)rB3FGfW6028152(_at_)hedwig(_dot_)cmf(_dot_)nrl(_dot_)navy(_dot_)mil>
| Yeah, that's the weird part, at least to me ... how did the authors of
| RFC 822 envision that would be used?
It is actually much older than that, groups appear to have originated
in rfc724, which was a pre-cursor of rfc733, which was the e-mail spec
before 822 eventually replaced it..
But Dave Crocker was an author even back that far (but not as far back
as rfc680 which preceded it - and in which groups didn't exist), so it
would be entirely reasonable to ask him - he generally answers e-mail.
Try dhc at dcrocker.net (in approximately rfc680 address syntax...)
| I don't doubt you've seen it used both ways, but I have to ask: how
| many decades ago did you see a group list that included the addresses
| in the header?
Not sure, but you're right, it as probably been a while.
| Nowadays I've solely seen the group functionality used for
| blind distribution lists.
I use it to send e-mail to stunts in my classes (without their addresses
being sent to each other - if they want to exchange e-mail addresses, they
can do that for themselves).
| But this behavior is (as far as I can tell)
| neither endorsed nor prohibited by the RFCs; it's a grey area.
Not grey so much as optional - you're allowed to do it whichever way
you want, and ideally, the MUA would support both.
kre
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers