>Another point: Is it useful to retrieve the untagged mailbox value? >(E.g. could that be a way to patch, say, ezmlm?)
Yes, that's the only benefit I can see to standardizing the syntax. > If it is, it would be helpful to have a syntax that delivers a good >level of confidence that a given token is a BATV-tagged >representation of some tagging scheme even if that was not known at >implementation time. First, let's see whether we expect other tagging schemes. The more I think about it, the less likely I think it is. R's, John
