Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!syd From: syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm Subject: Re: Elm's From: line.... Message-ID: <1991May3.132436.1109@DSI.COM> Date: 3 May 91 13:24:36 GMT References: <5007@melon11.UUCP> <2758@uts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> Reply-To: syd@DSI.COM Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Lines: 29 rmmqq11@uts.mcc.ac.uk (A. Thew.) writes: >> From: Full Name >> >> Instead of: >> >> From: user@host (Full Name) >In fact why can't elm produce a To: field of form 1, this would appear >to be more conformant with RFC822 (this sounds like a FAQ.....). Neither is more conformant. Either it conforms or it doesn't and both conform to the spec. The first form specified that is the intersystem transport address and "Full Name" is the local qualifier. (Just that most systems totally ignore the local qualifier is irrelavant) The second form says user@host is the complete address and (...) is a comment that is never to be seen by the delivery agents. See the example "George, Ted" in RFC822 on page 36, heading A.1.3. It really doesn't matter and I have no idea why Dave used that form, perhaps it was easier to deal with for some of his earlier non RFC-822 MTA's. -- ===================================================================== Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235