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

> 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 ?)

This is actually a clarification: Reply-To already allows either
mailbox or group syntax (in the ABNF), and I just thought it a good
idea, while I was touching that text, to make it clear in the text.

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