RE: [Mailman-Developers][MAILER-DAEMON@mira.linknet.com.au:Undeliverable Mail]

2002-07-23 Thread Dan Wing
Send us a screen shot of what your To line looked like, though. -d > -Original Message- > From: Dan Kohn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 3:39 PM > To: Keith Moore; Terri Oda > Cc: Dan Wing; Jay R. Ashworth; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [

RE: [Mailman-Developers][MAILER-DAEMON@mira.linknet.com.au:Undeliverable Mail]

2002-07-23 Thread Dan Kohn
FYI, Outlook with Exchange Server 2000, does the "right thing". Here's the To lines on an outgoing message: From: "Dan Kohn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - dan -- Dan Kohn -Original Mess

Re: [Mailman-Developers][MAILER-DAEMON@mira.linknet.com.au:Undeliverable Mail]

2002-07-23 Thread Keith Moore
> Actually, the offending client in this case is Sylpheed, much as I'd like to > blame outlook. (goodness knows, I blame it for Klez.) I take it Sylpheed is the one that generates bogus phrases? > I'd have to find someone with a copy of outlook to try it and be sure, but I > think outlook does

Re: [Mailman-Developers][MAILER-DAEMON@mira.linknet.com.au:Undeliverable Mail]

2002-07-23 Thread Terri Oda
> Because in Microsoft's Outlook and Outlook Express, if a > user is in your addressbook and you send a message to that > user, only their friendly name ("Keith Moore") appears in > the "To:" line. You must click your mouse on the name to > see the user@host form of the name. The workaround is

Re: [Mailman-Developers][MAILER-DAEMON@mira.linknet.com.au:Undeliverable Mail]

2002-07-22 Thread Keith Moore
> Because in Microsoft's Outlook and Outlook Express, if a > user is in your addressbook and you send a message to that > user, only their friendly name ("Keith Moore") appears in > the "To:" line. You must click your mouse on the name to > see the user@host form of the name. The workaround is >

Re: [Mailman-Developers][MAILER-DAEMON@mira.linknet.com.au:Undeliverable Mail]

2002-07-22 Thread Keith Moore
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" is not legal under RFC 2822. It is > must not generate under either current (section 3) or obsolete (section > 4) grammar. true, it's illegal to have an '@' in a phrase unless its quoted. it was illegal in RFC 822 also, which means it's been illegal for

RE: [Mailman-Developers][MAILER-DAEMON@mira.linknet.com.au:Undeliverable Mail]

2002-07-22 Thread Dan Wing
> perhaps even worse, it's redundant. why say > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > or even > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > when simply > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > will do? Because in Microsoft's Outlook and Outlook Express, if a user is in your addressbook and y