Message-Id: <v0300560bad74b40071f0@[205.214.160.50]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 11:04:34 -0800
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Subject: Naming and addressing


Formal name:

	RFC 822 allows a distinction between the formal, or human, name of
a person and their email address.  Due to a really silly specification
error, RFC822 does not adequately make clear this intent and that led to a
common alternative for the same purpose:  the use of the comment string.

	Use of comment string is problematic.  I hope we don't have to
debate this point.  I've seen the problems and assume others have to0.

	I suggest that we fix this aspect of 822 and make the Name
<address> form clear in its intent, requiring its generation when Name is
present, and deprecate the use of Comment for Name.  Comments are comments.
They are supposed to have no standard interpretation and are supposed to be
tossable.  Names aren't.


From/Reply-to/Sender:

	As has been noted, the implication that 733 and 822 had about the
Sender field being "authentic" is silly.  In fact, the goal was validity of
an email address, rather than formal signature authenticity, was the goal.
Or, rather, the goal was to permit the From field to have random strings to
refer to folks who might be fully off-net.  Given current realities, I'd
say that we can live without this wonderful feature and can simplify the
syntax in the way that was suggested, making all of the 3 fields use
exactly the same ruleset, as I recall 1*address.

d/

--------------------
Dave Crocker                                              +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               fax: +1 408 249 6205
675 Spruce Dr.                                   dcrocker@brandenburg.com
Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA                         http://www.brandenburg.com

Internet Mail Consortium                 http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org