Google Kreme:
Ruud H.G. van Tol:
The "friendly-name" comment, is an obsolete format
Doesn't matter, you have to deal with the mail you GET, not jsut the
mail you get that is formatted properly.
You didn't get what I stated, but I won't start calling you grasshopper
because of it. ;)
Dallman used the phrase '"friendly-name" comments in email addresses'
to als refer to formats that are not '"friendly-name" comments in
email addresses'. So I wrote:
The "friendly-name" comment, is an obsolete format
by which I meant that it is only one of the many formats that you
will find if you followed what I also said:
See RFC 2822. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
Some nightmary examples of single addresses
"foo(_dot_)00(_at_)example(_dot_)com" <foo(_dot_)01(_at_)example(_dot_)com>
(foo(_dot_)11(_at_)example(_dot_)com is now
also foo(_dot_)01(_at_)example(_dot_)com)
foo . 01 @ example . com (foo(_dot_)00(_at_)example(_dot_)com)
I didn't write an addr-list (see RFC 2822) parser in 'just-procmail'
yet. See
http://info.ccone.at/INFO/Mail-Archives/procmail/Jul-2002/msg00046.html
and http://www.well.com/user/barts/email/rfc822rc.txt
for a good start.
--
Grtz, Ruud
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail