Thanks for your responses. Ian Eiloart said: > And, which of the two quoting forms below is Exchange using?
Exchange is sending: > > A.N.Other <[email protected]> > Oh, but which of these forms is Exchange using? They're both valid, though = > the quotes are redundant. Well (and to answer Roger Burton West here too), I looked at RFC 2822 last week and have just checked again. Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, phrases containing dots should be quoted. I found this while searching for a solution to the quoting problem, which seems to agree with my understanding of RFC 2822: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/exim/users/1929?do=post_view_threaded > So, which MUA are you using? And what is the complaint? I'm using nmh with exmh (yeah, I know, but I've been using it for a long time!) and get: repl: bad addresses: A.N.Other <[email protected]> -- no at-sign after local-part (<) because it expects phrases containing dots to be quoted. > Ah, OK, so you're thinking that the lack of quotes is causing the problem. = > It shouldn't. Is there something else going on. Can you give a real example= > that exhibits the problem? I suspect that we're dealing with a specific ph= > rase that requires quoting. Yeah, it's definitely the lack of quotes around phrases containing dots. If I quote them manually and then do a reply, it works fine. As far as I can see, most MUAs are pretty lax about this, so it's become acceptable. I'm not bothered about it, but unfortunately, my MUA is! Thanks. -- Cheers, Ian. The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302). -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
