[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing |
Date: |
Sun, 03 Aug 2014 13:43:04 -0400 |
>What are the implications of that for those of us who have mail
>dating back to when that format was fairly common practice? Not
>long ago I had cause to list real names, and did it using
>mh-format.
I guess the implication would be that the real name wouldn't be recognized.
If you used %(friendly), it would never see that (under my proposal).
I was under the impression that even back in the day, that format was not
common. If you've got mail that old, would you care to check and see how
much you have with addresses like that?
--Ken
Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, David Levine, 2014/08/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ken Hornstein, 2014/08/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Jon Fairbairn, 2014/08/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing,
Ken Hornstein <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ralph Corderoy, 2014/08/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2014/08/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ken Hornstein, 2014/08/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2014/08/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2014/08/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ken Hornstein, 2014/08/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Robert Elz, 2014/08/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Paul Fox, 2014/08/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ken Hornstein, 2014/08/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Thoughts: header/address parsing, Ralph Corderoy, 2014/08/05