On 17 Aug 2011, at 15:26, Ian Cameron wrote: > Thanks for the responses so far. I have grouped similar responses together > below with my answers. > > Richard Clayton said: >> See #4.1 of RFC5322 (the discussion of obs-phrase) >> >> You should not be generating obs-phrases ... but the other end should be >> accepting them ! You'll need to fix one end or the other. > > Ian Eiloart said: > >> AFAICS, obs-phrase wasn't offered as an option in rfc822, but it seems to me >> that the dot has been legal in unquoted display names since 2001. > > OK then, that's fair enough. nmh is happy to accept them, but complains when > replying instead of attempting to fix them or just ignoring them. Is the > concensus that if I were to fix nmh, it should be quoting dotty phrases or > just allow sending of unquoted dotty phrases? I'm thinking the former from > what Richard has written above.
Yes, I think you probably should quote the dotty phrases. Or, rather, dotty obs-phrases! -- Ian Eiloart Postmaster, University of Sussex +44 (0) 1273 87-3148 -- ## 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/
