On 06Sep2015 07:35, Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> wrote:
On 05Sep2015 09:19, Ian Zimmerman <i...@buug.org> wrote:
I think this is mutt's overly strict (pedantic?) interpretation of RFC
2822 (or whatever is the current version), section 3.4 (Address
Specification). That section says that an address is in one _and only
one_ of two forms:
1. Foo Bar <foo...@baz.com>
2. foo...@baz.com (Foo Bar)
[...]
But I think your form is legal, though obsolete.
On that basis I think mutt should accept your From: header.
Actually, on reading section 4 from RFC 2822 "Obsolete Grammar", mutt should
parse your From: line but _not_ emit it unchanged. Obsolete grammar is meant to
be accepted and understood but not generated.
Maybe mutt should quote your name section like Ian's suggestion rather than
discarding the obsolete part.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au>
