Bart Schaefer <schaefer(_at_)zanshin(_dot_)com> writes:
I believe the proposed new standard for news articles still prefers the
"address (comment)" syntax and specifies that the comment is to be taken
as the "real name," so you're likely to keep seeing that form for quite
some while whenever news<->mail gateways get involved. MUAs like Netscape
that can/do simulateous e-mailing and news-posting of the same composition
are likely to continue generating "addres (comment)" as well, because the
news standards are stricter than the e-mail ones.
Nope. The internet-draft that is hoped to be a replacement for rfc1036
("Grandson of 1036") does not say that. In section 4.3.8 "Comments",
it includes the following text:
A comment is normally used to provide some human readable
informational text, except at the end of an <address> which
contains no <phrase>, as in
fred(_at_)foo(_dot_)bar(_dot_)com (Fred Bloggs)
as opposed to
"Fred Bloggs" <fred(_at_)foo(_dot_)bar(_dot_)com>
The former is a deprecated, but commonly encountered, usage
and reading agents SHOULD take special note of such comments
as indicating the name of the person whose <address> it is. In
all other situations a comment is semantically interpreted as
a single SP.
And then later, section 5.2 "From" starts:
The From header contains the electronic address(es), and
possibly the full name, of the article's author(s) . The
format of the From header is defined in the Message Format
Standard [MESSFOR].
Hmm, rfc1036 specifies that the From: field must contain one of the
following three forms:
guenther(_at_)gac(_dot_)edu
guenther(_at_)gac(_dot_)edu (Philip Guenther)
Philip Guenther <guenther(_at_)gac(_dot_)edu>
Older software generates the second form instead of the third because
this evolved from the old bang-path address form:
mrnet!gacnet!guenther (Philip Guenther)
Anyway, anything post-1036 that can't handle the now prefered form is
broken and should be returned to the circular file.
Philip Guenther