>Also RFC 6854. It just allows group support in some header
>fields that 5322 doesn't. I bring it up because it was
>proposed in March 2013, so apparently there's still interest
>in developing group support. (I don't bring it up because
>I think it's a good idea.)
Fair enough ... looking back at that very brief discussion, I think fixing
that for us was very simple.
>> email headers have what is known as "group" support. Specifically, you
>> can do something like this:
>>
>> To: groupname: a, b, c;
>
>nmh handles this the same way, if there's no need for the
>trailing semicolon:
>
> To: groupname: a, b, c
Technically, the semicolon is required by the standard. post(1) will insert
one if it doesn't exist. Also, I forgot to mention this with Ralph's
message, but as I read it the example he posted:
To: cow-orkers: tom, dick, harry; xyzzy
is incorrect. It should be:
To: cow-orkers: tom, dick, harry;, xyzzy
Although it seems we clean this up when you get it wrong; how about that!
>After seeing your later messages, maybe that's a surprise.
>I don't know if there's a way for nmh to put a non-blind group
>in a message.
Currently, there is not. Like I said, it's been that way since at least
1985, and I haven't seen any complaints just yet :-/
>I vote for just updating the documentation. Because the
>trailing semicolon isn't required, maybe we shouldn't call
>it group support, just blind list? And maybe that would
>avoid Ralph's objection?
I'm not sure how to write some documentation here that is clear; I
prefer using RFC termology whenever possible, so I'd still like to
say "group".
>Also, this might be related to the way I fixed part of this bug:
>
> http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?15604
>
>which reported that the last member of a blind list in an MH
>alias file wasn't expanded. The fix was to remove the
>trailing semicolon from the documentation. Now I can guess
>where it came from. I don't see a need to revisit that
>because this is for the alias file, not in the draft. So
>there's not an issue with non-related addresses following
>the alias on a line.
Hm, so you never figured out the root cause? I mean, in theory it SHOULD
have worked fine. But having just dealt with this for the RFC 2047 encoder,
I can see it's easy to get it wrong.
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
