Thanks for your responses.
Ian Eiloart said:
> And, which of the two quoting forms below is Exchange using?
Exchange is sending:
> > A.N.Other <A.N.Other@???>
> Oh, but which of these forms is Exchange using? They're both valid, though =
> the quotes are redundant.
Well (and to answer Roger Burton West here too), I looked at RFC 2822 last
week and have just checked again. Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, phrases
containing dots should be quoted.
I found this while searching for a solution to the quoting problem, which seems
to agree with my understanding of RFC 2822:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/exim/users/1929?do=post_view_threaded
> So, which MUA are you using? And what is the complaint?
I'm using nmh with exmh (yeah, I know, but I've been using it for a long
time!) and get:
repl: bad addresses:
A.N.Other <A.N.Other@???> -- no at-sign after local-part (<)
because it expects phrases containing dots to be quoted.
> Ah, OK, so you're thinking that the lack of quotes is causing the problem. =
> It shouldn't. Is there something else going on. Can you give a real example=
> that exhibits the problem? I suspect that we're dealing with a specific ph=
> rase that requires quoting.
Yeah, it's definitely the lack of quotes around phrases containing dots. If I
quote them manually and then do a reply, it works fine.
As far as I can see, most MUAs are pretty lax about this, so it's become
acceptable. I'm not bothered about it, but unfortunately, my MUA is!
Thanks.
--
Cheers, Ian.
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt
charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
