Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-email-deliveredto-05.txt

On 8/9/2021 8:29 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 08, 2021 at 07:02:02PM +0200, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> Nobody puts unstructured phrases into "Delivered-To".  There are no
>> display names in this context, because the payload is derived
>> exclusively from an envelope address.  The "phrase" bits are redundant
>> and incompatible with current practice.
> 
> Unfortunately this is not the case. Here's one example, from last year:
> 
>    Delivered-to: mailing list [email protected]

ahh, thanks.  That's an example of what I thought I'd seen but couldn't 
find this morning.



> In any case, the real question, I think, is not whether or not examples can be
> found of incompatible use of this field - they can - but whether we want to
> require implementation to support what is best a rare usage. Speaking for
> myself, I think the answer should be "no".

Different semantics, within the framework of the same, email-address 
syntax, seems a relatively minor point to me, and is arguably covered 
adequately by the generic prose already in the draft, about the nature 
of the string.

On the other hand, the difference between allowing arbitrary text 
(phrase) in the field's payload seems a big deal to me.  As noted, it 
messes with parsing, given the absence of the usual delimiters.

Having the spec formally exclude an existing practice is obviously a big 
deal.



d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net