Re: Update to RFC 5322 to allow "group" syntax in the "from" header

John R Levine wrote:
> Executive summary: I sent myself some messages with an empty group in
> From: headers to see what various MUAs did with them.  Nothing broke.
> [...]
> * Thunderbird 
> Displayed OK. Reply put the same empty From: group on the To: line,
> rejects attempts to send it with a message saying to fix the To: line.

Ditto for kmail 1.13.7 (KDE 4.8.4).
  (although kmail misparses (but survives) the more complex example
  in RFC 5322 Appendix A.5 - but that is another story)

Also tested a content filter Amavis, it parses the address-list syntax
in a From header field correctly, including the RFC 5322 A.5 example.


Hector Santos wrote:
> Currently, I am pretty sure our software will not break, but if a 
> group address is added to From:, that will became part of the id 
> (display name). That will make the first address id "A Group:Ed Jones"

Semantically a group name behaves as a display name, so
in some generalized meaning I don't find it incorrect
to concatenate a group (display) name to every display
name in its group-list.



One comment on the change:

-   In either case, an optional reply-to field MAY also
-   be included, which contains the field name "Reply-To" and a comma-
-   separated list of one or more addresses.
+   In either case, an optional reply-to field MAY also
+   be included, which contains the field name "Reply-To" and a comma-
+   separated list of one or more addresses (either mailbox or group
+   syntax).

I think the original statement should be left alone,
the document shouldn't be touching a "Reply-To" semantics,
which I already find problematic (what's the point in having
a group with an empty list of mailboxes in a Reply-To ?)


There is one concern that I have. A "Sender" field was supposed
to be required when a "From" does not contain exactly one
mailbox name. With relaxed syntax allowing "address-list"
in a "From" header field, and with "group" syntax allowing
an empty "group-list", the draft seems to count a "group"
as one address, even if its "group-list" is empty.

I think the requirement for the presence of a "Sender" field
should depend on the number of "mailboxes" (instead of "addresses")
not being exactly one, i.e. not counting a group as exactly
one address, but counting mailboxes in its "group-list".
Otherwise the purpose of requiring a Sender (when it can't
be uniquely derived from a "From" field) seems to be lost.

In other words, I think the "Sender" should be required
when a "From" header field specifies a group with an empty
list of mailboxes.

  Mark


_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822