On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:43:08AM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > >> That part is surprisingly easy: If it contains a '<', then it's on the form > >> "Foo Bar Baz <foo@xxxxxxx>". If not, it's "foo@xxxxxxx" (assuming it's > >> UTF-8 encoded rfc5322 mailbox'es we assume, which would make the most > >> sense to me) > > > > What about: > > > > Â"Foo \"The Bar\" Baz" <foo@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > or > > > > ÂFoo "The Bar" Baz <foo@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > or > > > > ÂFoo (The Bar) Baz <foo@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I.e., are we taking rfc822-style addresses, or are we taking something > > that looks vaguely like an email address, and just treating everything > > left of "<" as literal? > > I was just thinking of interpreting everything left of '<' literally > and encode it (if needed). Currently, we interpret the entire string > literally, encoding the name would an improvement. Won't that be a regression for people who already know that we take things literally and are manually quoting and/or rfc2047-encoding the contents? -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html