Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Yes, we need to clear up our handling of the envelope, as has > been noted > elsewhere. But a null envelope sender is perfectly valid if it is > understood to mean "<>". A "default sender" would be a > terrible thing to > do, in that context, unless the so-called default is "<>". I > think I prefer > null, which does not require parsing.
Yes, only reflection I agree. -- Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
