Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 10:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft's Messaging Contacts
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 30 Jun 1996 13:10:48 -0400"
 <2.2.16.19960630171048.470f62d6@mail1.reston.mci.net>
To: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
Cc: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com>, drums@cs.utk.edu
Message-id: <01I6IM1PLF00AOKEAC@INNOSOFT.COM>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

> > Having said this, please note that Exchange was nowhere near any of the
> > limits on header size. Its use of this RFC822 "feature" is unnecessary and,
> > I think, should be avoided if at all possible.

> Ned,

> I could easily live with a rule that discouraged multiple To: and Cc: fields
> but permitted when required for operational necessity reasons, such as the
> ones you cite.  I would prefer to see them banned for the "one To: field per
> address" or even "per few addresses" case -- they *do*, as you know, cause
> other problems.

Absolutely.

> I think that is why my most recent note moved toward a "SHOULD" prohibition,
> rather than a "MUST" one.  And using a "SHOULD" on the sending MTA means
> that we are probably obligated to write some sort of "MUST ACCEPT" rule for
> the receiving one.

Agreed.

				Ned