From RFC2822, Section 3.4.: group = display-name ":" [mailbox-list / CFWS] ";" [CFWS] [...] When it is desirable to treat several mailboxes as a single unit (i.e., in a distribution list), the group construct can be used. The group construct allows the sender to indicate a named group of recipients. This is done by giving a display name for the group, followed by a colon, followed by a comma separated list of any number of mailboxes (including zero and one), and ending with a semicolon. 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 each of those recipients. Similar specs exist in RFC822. We don't support them, at least not in the msg viewer. Note: This is a bug, not an RFE. Supporting RFC822 is the most basic requirement for an email app. I will file a separate bug to use groups for sending to lists (in Mozilla's Address Book). Reproduction (one possible - there are lots of reasons why I might see such "groups"): 1. telnet your.smtp.server 25 2. Type HELO a.domain Mail FROM: <email@example.com> RCPT TO: <firstname.lastname@example.org> DATA hello . 2. Recieve mail with Mozilla 3. View the mail Result: This gives me a mail (msg source) like Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 20:41:31 +0200 From: email@example.com Message-Id: <foo@mailserver> To: undisclosed-recipients: ; hello Actual result: The To row in the Mazilla viewer shows undisclosed-recipients:, ";" while undisclosed-recipients: and ";" are separate addresses. Expected result: The To row in the Mazilla viewer shows undisclosed-recipients If the group is non-empty, we need to figure out a good display. Ccing Jen and mpt.
Bug 83521 is about groups in the Composer / during send.
Does Group-Name <mailbox-list> looks bad? If it's ok, then this bug can be fixed very easy (only address parsing code must be aware of groups :-) ). Otherwise notion of rfc822 group need to spread a bit wider.
This address: undisclosed-recipients:; ...is perfectly valid according to RFC822. Mozilla must accept this construct any place it would accept an address. This means that Mozilla *must* permit someone to compose a message to that address (see my 2002-01-17 comments on bug 83521). It also means that Mozilla must properly deal with a received message that uses the group construct.. E.g., displaying the above construct as: To: undisclosed-recipients:, ";" ...is not acceptable. Replying to a message and having mozilla include the string "undisclosed-recipients" as potential recipient is not acceptable. (If the group is null, then Mozilla should omit it; otherwise, it should preserve the group syntax in the reply.)
Duping to bug 110605 which is already assigned. pi *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 110605 ***