🚀 go-pugleaf

Sorry, I an reposting, last message got mangled.

I was looking at the syntax of In-Reply-To and References in
RFC822.  Here are the relevant parts:
--------
     optional-field =
     [...]
                 /  "In-Reply-To"       ":"  *(phrase / msg-id)
                 /  "References"        ":"  *(phrase / msg-id)
     [...]
     phrase      =  1*word                       ; Sequence of words
     word        =  atom / quoted-string
     quoted-string = <"> *(qtext/quoted-pair) <">; Regular qtext or
     atom        =  1*<any CHAR except specials, SPACE and CTLs>
     specials    =  "(" / ")" / "<" / ">" / "@"  ; Must be in quoted-
                 /  "," / ";" / ":" / "\" / <">  ;  string, to use
                 /  "." / "[" / "]"              ;  within a word.

     [Example]
     A.3.3.  About as complex as you're going to get
     [...]
     In-Reply-To: <some.string@DBM.Group>, George's message
-----------------------------------------^

Given that only phrases or message-id's can appear in the
field-body, and that phrases are made of words and words of atoms,
and an atom cannot be a special, then the comma following
the address in the example is illegal, right?

Further, one could put neither addresses nor dates in the field-body
unless these strings are quoted  (there is "." and "@" in addresses,
and ":" and "," in dates).

-- gk