On 5/30/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Serge Knystautas wrote: > > > Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sounds as if we want a Recipient class for internal use, > > > rather than just a String containing the e-mail address. > > > I don't remember why we started allowing recipients to be String > > instead of MailAddress. MailAddress was designed to be for > > recipients, but I guess it was clumsy to use or something. Anyway, > > then this would have been perfect to extend MailAddress with one that > > has attributes. The idea of per-recipient attributes was never > > considered (AFAIK). > > I look at it as a Recipient HAS a MailAddress rather than IS a MailAddress, > but in most cases that might be a bit hair-splitting.
Is there a case where a recipient does NOT have a mailaddress? -- Serge Knystautas Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
