On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 02:44:48PM -0400, Sean Conner wrote: > It was thus said that the Great Joshua Juran once stated: > > On Oct 29, 2008, at 2:54 AM, Denny wrote: > > > > >On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 20:51 -0700, Joshua Juran wrote: > > >>Why the hell can't I tell iTunes or my iPod to finish the > > >>current track and then pause? > > > > > >Are you saying you can't play a single track by itself on an iPod? > > > > Basically, yes -- you can't. Or with iTunes. > > > > ># include std_reply_to_list_not_enabled_hate > > > > Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful, and blame your mail user agent > > for not letting you reply-to-list by default. > > Reply-To Munging is Considered Ambiguous: > > http://boston.conman.org/2000/02/03 > > Section 4.4.3 of RFC-822 seems to allow it, but for those of you who > consider RFC-822 a bit outdated, I did try checking up on RFC-2822, and > while I didn't find anything equivilent to RFC-822 sect. 4.4.3, I did > however, notice the slight redefinition of the "Reply-To" header. In > RFC-822, it was defined as: > > "Reply-To" ":" 1#address > > whereas in RFC-2822, it's defined as: > > "Reply-To:" address-list CRLF > address-list = (address *("," address)) / obs-addr-list > > So it looks like you can now add mutiple recipients to the "Reply-To" > field, which should satisfy all concerns.
Oh, but RFC 822 doesn't prevent you from adding multiple recipients in the Reply-To header. Reply-To: Foo: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]; is allowed according to the grammar of RFC 822. Abigail
