> 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 superseded 822 nearly six years ago.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