> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:20:28 -0500
> From: Hal Keen <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Problem with some Entourage users
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> > Not too surprising.  RFC-822 calls for only one address in the Reply-to:
> header.
> 
> You caught me by surprise with this. I had checked RFC 2822, which
> superseded 822 nearly six years ago.

I concede.  Upon careful reading the BNF, as well as the verbiage, I blew it.  
Totally mis-read the RFC.  In both 822 and 2822...

Apologies.

Regards,
GRegory Hicks

> 
> But , pulling a copy of RFC 822 off the RFC Editor's database, I find this:
> 
>    4.4.3.  REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
>         This field provides a general  mechanism  for  indicating  any
>         mailbox(es)  to which responses are to be sent.
> 
> The same use of "mailbox(es)", optionally plural, appears in RFC 2822:
> 
>    3.6.2. Originator fields
>   :
>    .... When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
>    indicates the mailbox(es) to which the author of the message suggests
>    that replies be sent.
> 
> In neither case is the option emphasized, but it appears to have been there,
> albeit widely ignored, for a very long time: continuing my research with the
> predecessor of RFC 822, I find the same description in RFC 733 (Standard for
> the Format of ARPA Network Text Messages), dated 21 November 1977.
> 
> Hal Keen

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Hicks                        | Principal Systems Engineer
Cadence Design Systems               | Direct:   408.576.3609
555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1
San Jose, CA 95134

I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes.  I will surely
learn a great deal today.

"A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for
lunch.  Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the
decision." - Benjamin Franklin

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton