As per Relevance of the word individual, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group D. Crocker (ISI
Request for Comments: 720 Aug 1976
NIC #36337
References: RFC #680
Address Specification Syntax for Network
Experience with processing mail on the Arpanet has pointed up
addressing issues, including
1. People's names are not the same as their addresses
2. Mailing lists can get quite long
3. To allow responding, messages often need to carry all of
mailing list with them
4. It would be very useful to be able to send mail to files
than the person's primary mailbox
The current mail syntax, specified in RFC 680, does not provide
convenient mechanism for distinguishing between a person's name
their mailing address. In cases of shared directories, the ATTN:
is marginally adequate; however it is completely inappropriate
single-user mailboxes in which the address specification is
cryptic. CMU's identification tags are good examples of this problem
since they tend to appear to be random character sequences; the use
initials as tags also points up the problem. If you doubt
referential ambiguity of addresses, then try to use only the
presented, rather than random personal knowledge, to discern
Micro@ISI, JFH@ISI, or Greep@ISD are. By having a formal syntax
separately specifying names and addresses, mail display software
printout out name lists which only contain human names...makes
friendlier
The problem with long mailing lists is that, if included in the text
a message, they often are longer than the main part of the message
Group names are allowed in address fields primarily to circumvent
problem. However the advent of semi-automated message answering,
which a receiver's message system prepares address lists for
messages by copying appropriate fields from the original message,
the current mechanism deficient: having the group name means that
receiver does not have the names/addresses of the members of the group
A convention is generally followed, now, which has the group name be
pathname to the file containing the list. Though facilitative,
does not represent an adequate solution
And lastly is the issue of multiple mailboxes for a single user.
feature is probably has the largest potential for
applications, with messages for an on-going discussion
placed into a separate mailbox. In the case of shared directories,
mechanism also would allow easy channeling into each person's
mailbox
-1-
With these needs in mind, and until a more robust mail syntax
protocol is specified, the following general syntax is proposed
augment the existing syntax specified in RFC 680, for address
specified by the user
Name:(Person(User-Id(Mailbox) at Host),...),; ...
"Name" is the name of the mailing list; "Person" presumably
the name of the person receiving the mail
"User-Id" is their online reference name (usually their
directory);
"Mailbox" is a a secondary mailbox/file
and the rest conforms to RFC 680, although "@" may be used
place of " at " in the specification
Parentheses may be replaced by other bracketing pairs ([], {}, <>).
Quotation marks must be used any time the string contains
characters, such as space or parentheses. The brackets after Name
used to request exclusion of the address list from the message,
using text which gives the pathname to the source of the list
The formal syntax for address specification, within network
actually sent, is included in the next section
Not all of a specification is required, so perhaps some examples
clarify things:.
A normal specification, as used currently: Walker at
A named list, to be carried with the message, with the
address not a member of the list: List:Walker
ISI,greep@rand-isd;Action@
A named list, NOT to be carried with the message; the
contents will be replaced with a text string indicating the
of the list -- not very useful if the list is typed in by
user, rather than pulled from a file;
List:(Walker@ISI,greep at rand); Action at ISi will be changed
appear in the message as List:("/rnd/dcrocker/mail.list");
at
A list with personal names. separate from addresses: "
Walker"[Walker at ISI], Bob
A teleconferencing address list
Talkers:"Dave C"(DCrocker(TC.msg)@isi),...;
-2-
Formal
--------------------
The following modified BNF is to serve as a
addition/replacement for specifications within RFC 680. The
eliminated from the existing specification are: ,
, , , , .
, , , and .
can be performed through use of the person's
and secondary file specification. Also, should be
to be::
Sender = "SENDER: "
And the added fields are
Address-Field = Address-List / Address-List ,,:,
Address-
Address-List = Individual-List / Group-
Group-List = Group-Name Group-
Group-Name = / Name ":"
Group-Members = Individual-List / L-Bracket
R-
Pathname = {A Name which can at least provide
human with enough information to
the file containing the Group-List
Individual-List = Individual /
Individual-
Address Specification Syntax for Network
Individual = Mailbox / Name L-Bracket
R-
L-Bracket = "(" / "[" / "{" / "<"
R-Bracket = ")" / "]" / "}" / ">"
Mailbox = Id Secondary-File At
Id =
At = "" at "" / "@"
Host = {An acceptable host name
-3-
Secondary-File = / L-Bracket Filename R-
Filename =
Name = {An Ascii string without
return, line feed, space, '"', ",",
";", or any L-Bracket or R-Bracket} /
'"' {An Ascii string with any
quotation marks doubled} '"'
The particular L-Bracket and R-Bracket characters used must
each other. The requirement for quotation marks has been made
severe than absolutely necessary in order to simplify
requirments. Note also that the above specified syntax is
inter-entity communications and is not necessarily indicative of
the user types
-4-
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
