Re: [yam] Issue #10: RFC 5321 3.9: add tiny subsection

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

> There is a proposal to rename Section 3.9 of RFC 5321 to "Forwarding" 
> (Issue #10) and to add a "Backup MX" subsection.  I do not support this 
> change as:
> 
>  (i) It would be a significant change to Section 3.9 between the Draft 
> and Full Standard.

Yes, it would. However, it implies no protocol changes. In addition, 
it would be a really tiny subsection.

>  (ii) There isn't any relationship between "Backup MX" and "Forwarding".

I agree that "Backup MX" is a poor title, and I apologize for having 
transferred it as-is from my notes to this list. Its most notable 
defect is that it does not include smart hosts nor other servers along 
the outgoing path. I'd amend the tentatively proposed titles to be

   Forwarding
     Relaying   <-- "Backup MX" was here
     Aliases
     Mailing lists

The relationship among these server's activities may now be clearer.

The subsection would be tiny because relaying is already explained in 
Section 3.6. It should just say that the envelope addresses are left 
intact. Since envelope addresses are the point of Section 3.9, such a 
simple observation would make it complete in this respect.