[Standards-JIG] "JEP-0033: Extended Stanza Addressing" and email (RFC822)
hildjj at gmail.com
Sun Sep 5 21:03:16 UTC 2004
That's fine. Having multiple reply-to's isn't such a bad thing, I
guess, as long as it means "send to all of these, rather than the from
address in the outer stanza".
This can be part of the implementation experience...
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 06:10:13 +0200, Tijl Houtbeckers
<thoutbeckers at splendo.com> wrote:
> Currently I'm working on a project involving email and Jabber. This
> involves mapping email address headers to Jabber ones. The most logical
> solultion for this would ofcourse be JEP-0033, which starts out:
> "A protocol that enables entities to include RFC822-style address headers
> for XMPP stanzas in order to specify multiple recipients or sub-addresses."
> However JEP-0033 Explicitly forbids multiple "reply-to" adressess:
> "4.6.4 Address type='replyto'
> This is the address to which all replies are requested to be sent. Clients
> SHOULD respect this request unless an explicit override occurs. There MUST
> NOT be more than a single replyto, replyroom, or noreply on a stanza.
> For email however, this is perfectly allowed! Let's take a look at RFC822:
> "4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
> This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any
> mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. [...]"
> Having multiple reply-to headers for an email isn't that rare either, you
> see it occasionally on SJIG itself for example. Is there any good reason
> that I missed for the JEP to explicitly forbid this?? It even adds later
> "7. Reply Handling
> When replying to a message stanza that contains an extended address, the
> following rules apply:
> If more than one replyto or replyroom address is specified (bad protocol),
> or if a noreply address is specified, a reply SHOULD NOT be generated.
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards