On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 01:40:05AM -0000, John Conover wrote:
>
> I'm running down a problem I think is an MUA problem, (Netscape,) and
> an interaction with qmail. Is it true that To: header syntax like:
>
> John Conover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> is depreciated, and:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Conover)
>
> is correct?
Both are correct, and neither is more correct than the other. It's in
RFC822:
So, for example, the folded body of an address field
":sysmail"@ Some-Group. Some-Org,
Muhammed.(I am the greatest) Ali @(the)Vegas.WBA
is analyzed into the following lexical symbols and types:
[snip]
The canonical representations for the data in these addresses
are the following strings:
":sysmail"@Some-Group.Some-Org
and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Comments can even go inside the address ;)
Also, qmail doesn't give a damn about the To: field :) It uses the
envelope recipient.
Greetz, Peter
--
| 'He broke my heart, | Peter van Dijk |
I broke his neck' | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
nognixz - As the sun | Hardbeat@ircnet - #cistron/#linux.nl |
| Hardbeat@undernet - #groningen/#kinkfm/#vdh |
