Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA17224; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 18:04:47 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 18:04:45 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from troy.software.com by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA17215; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 18:04:39 -0400
Received: from rome.software.com ([198.17.234.100]) by troy.software.com
          (post.office MTA v1.6 ID#0-1001) with ESMTP id AAA103;
          Thu, 1 Jun 1995 15:03:56 -0700
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.5.3 12/28/94
To: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>
cc: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: changes 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Jun 1995 16:50:53 EDT."
             <QjnWUh_00WBwM9xmRJ@andrew.cmu.edu> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 1995 15:04:25 -0700
From: michael.derrico@software.com (Michael D'Errico)
Message-ID: <19950601220355484.AAA103@rome.software.com>

> >     From: "Michael D'Errico"."Technical Support"@Software.com
> 
> Note that such an address is illegal in RFC 821.

Yes, you're right.  Since that's the case, such an address would not be very 
useful in 822, so the proposal from Mark Crispin would not really break 
anything except for disallowing comments between tokens -- does anybody know 
of a system that generates comments between tokens in an address?

I would not complain if these were disallowed too since the benefit of 
simpler syntax seems to outweigh the need for embedded comments (I don't 
think I've ever seen one except in 822 itself).

Mike