On N, 2007-12-09 at 08:54 +0100, Robin Redeker wrote: > > I recall that, too, but can't remember where I read it. Is this > documented > > anywhere? draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-04/-05 currently has this to > say about > > the topic (section 5.1.1): > > > > "If the message is being sent in reply to a message previously > received from > > an address of the form <[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource> (e.g., within the > context of a > > chat session), the value of the 'to' address SHOULD be of the form > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource> rather than of the form <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > unless > the > > sender has knowledge (via presence) that the intended recipient's > resource is > > no longer available." > > That section was exactly why the question came up, it says something > about > a 'chat session' (a undefined mildly fuzzy term). And the SHOULD there > seems > to indicate that one should take care of this.
Whoa... This puzzles me... Let's wait what Peter has to say about it. :-) -- /\_./o__ Tomasz Sterna (/^/(_^^' Xiaoka.com ._.(_.)_ XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
