I hate the new mail system

[Sean Conner]

It was thus said that the Great Fred Cisin via cctalk once stated:
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Eric Christopherson via cctalk wrote:
> >What makes it so that other mailing lists don't unsubscribe people when
> >bounces occur?
> 
> This list displays (not "full headers"):
> Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 20:23:42 -0600
> From: Eric Christopherson via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Reply-To: Eric Christopherson <echristopherson at gmail.com>,
>     "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" 
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" 
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: I hate the new mail system
> 
> 
> Some yahoos would do it as:
> Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 20:23:42 -0600
> From: "Eric Christopherson echristopherson at gmail.com [cctalk]"
>        <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" 
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: I hate the new mail system
> 
> 
> Notice, that they also munge the From:, but they include the author's 
> email address buried within the munged From:.
> 
> It is not the "correct" From: and Reply-to:,
> but, apparently some "modern" systems will not tolerate it done 
> "correctly".
> Given that it is NOT going to be done "correctly", which among us are 
> capable of successfully working around it?
> 
> This discussion is a little like a pedantic grammar argument.

  Well, RFC-5322 allows a mailbox-list in the From: header, and an
address-list for the Reply-To:, I don't think this is illegal.  And I just
noticed this RFC:

6854 Update to Internet Message Format to Allow Group Syntax in the
     "From:" and "Sender:" Header Fields. B. Leiba. March 2013. (Format:
     TXT=20190 bytes) (Updates RFC5322) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) (DOI:
     10.17487/RFC6854)

  Given that, I think adding to the Reply-To: header is kosher now.

  -spc (Hmm ... looks like I have to update my email parser ... )