http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.4 can be angle-addr only when there is a non-empty display-name.
in To: header with roundcube
From: Benny Pedersen me@junc.org To: opendkim-users@lists.opendkim.org Subject: Re: adsp fail
there must imho not be < > around To: header here
example from mozilla
From: Alessandro Vesely vesely@tana.it User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 To: opendkim-users@lists.opendkim.org Subject: Re: adsp fail
is more correct ?
On 12/13/2012 05:13 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.4 can be angle-addr only when there is a non-empty display-name.
name-addr = [display-name] angle-addr
display-name is optional, so angle-addr alone is also fine.
Am 13.12.2012 17:13, schrieb Benny Pedersen:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.4 can be angle-addr only when there is a non-empty display-name.
The "only" in this sentence is not correct.
in To: header with roundcube
From: Benny Pedersen me@junc.org To: opendkim-users@lists.opendkim.org Subject: Re: adsp fail
there must imho not be < > around To: header here
example from mozilla
From: Alessandro Vesely vesely@tana.it User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 To: opendkim-users@lists.opendkim.org Subject: Re: adsp fail
is more correct ?
RFC-wise, both are correct.
But being a purist in this respect, I would also prefer if Roundcube would eliminate the angle brackets if no display name is given.
-
A.L.E.C -
Benny Pedersen -
Michael Heydekamp