Re: [Nmh-workers] Question about RFC 2822: "A.1.3. Group addresses".

[David Levine]

Ken wrote:

> Fair enough.  I suspect that maybe this was the original intent, but
> whatever people intended as the original idea behind group address lists
> seem to have fallen by the wayside.  Nowadays you only really see them
> "in the wild" to obscure email recipients.

Yeah, RFC 5322 §3.4 ends with:

   Because the list of mailboxes can be empty, using the group construct
   is also a simple way to communicate to recipients that the message
   was sent to one or more named sets of recipients, without actually
   providing the individual mailbox address for any of those recipients.

And Appendix A.1.3 has an example of such a group, with the empty mailbox
list.  It also has an example with a non-empty list.  I think that post
should support that, but I agree that there's no pressing need for it.

David