On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 10:15:25PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:43:02PM -0000, Mutt wrote:
> > #1611: mutt erroneously omits information in parenthesis after addresses in
> > Cc
> > headers
> > -----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
> > Reporter: Marco d'Itri <md@xxxxxxxx> | Owner: mutt-dev
> > Type: defect | Status: new
> > Priority: minor | Milestone:
> > Component: mutt | Version: 1.5.20
> > Resolution: | Keywords:
> > -----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
> >
> > Comment(by agriffis):
> >
> > Those don't look like legal address specs to me. See
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.4
>
> Keep reading. See section 4.
Actually I read the spec much too quickly, and got it totally wrong.
It's explicitly allowed in RFC 5322, in section 3.4 that you point to.
3.4. Address Specification
Addresses occur in several message header fields to indicate
senders and recipients of messages. An address may either be an
individual mailbox, or a group of mailboxes.
address = mailbox / group
mailbox = name-addr / addr-spec
name-addr = [display-name] angle-addr
angle-addr = [CFWS] "<" addr-spec ">" [CFWS] /
obs-angle-addr
See section 3.2.2 for an explanation of [CFWS].
It is likewise explicitly allowed in RFCs 2822, and 822, and 733.
Note that 822 and 733 are standards; the more recent ones are not (not
that it matters in this case).
Attachment:
pgphXyicSkDio.pgp
Description: PGP signature