Hi Roelof, On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:37:40 +0200 Roelof Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm sorry but have to disagree. > Look two messages back in the thread. ;-) > You're reacting on a part of it, I know :-) You said RFC2822 tells Reply-To can have more than one address. Thomas "begged" not to say this is a change from 822 to 2822. You confirmed and stated you appreciate the change because it offers 'broader possibilities'. I had to disagree, because this _ain't_ a change between both versions, it were already present in 822, as well as it is in 2822, so I didn't disagree the fact it is allowed but the fact you stated: "RFC822 states clearly that the reply-to should have only one address." :-) Thought this is obvious as I concentrated to put my 'disagree' inline, directly behind this sentence of you :-) -- Pit ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
