Re: Another issue: quoting

   I had these exact same concerns two months ago, and careful reading of
   RFC 822 clarified some things.

   D. J. Bernstein has already pointed to section 3.4.4 of RFC 822, which
   explains that the backslashes used to quote the next character, and the
   quotation marks around quoted-strings, are not part of the data, and
   should not be retained outside a message-header context.

   As for the atom/dot structure, section 6.2.4 explains that it is not
   significant.  So in your example above, roy.badami and "roy.badami" do
   in fact refer to the same mailbox, even though they parse differently.

Thanks for the reference to 6.2.4.  It appears that I'm just plain
wrong here.

   I don't see what's wrong with defining a new term.

Not worth persuing this line of discussion; my comment was based on a
misapprehension of what RFC822 said.

		-roy