🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov18.164841.9044@progress.com>, header writes:
|> Hi all,
|> 
|> I've noticed two ways by which mail readers see a "Full name" of a sender
|> from mail received:
|> 
|> From: tucker@bedford.progress.com (Kyle Tucker)
|> &
|> From: "Kyle Tucker" <tucker@bedford.progress.com>
|> 
|> Is there a name for this Fullname field and is it documented in an RFC? I
|> looked in 822 and found the references to it kinda vague. Anyway, my goal
|> here is to find out if I have a legitimate gripe againts two companies
|> that send mail out without these fields as many users are complaining
|> that they can't easily figure out who sent the mail because of the horrible
|> userids allowed by some System Administrators.
    
In RFC 1123 the following change to RFC 822 is made:

	5.2.15  RFC-822 Syntax Change: RFC-822 Section 6.1

         The syntactic definition of "mailbox" in RFC-822 is hereby
         changed to:

            mailbox =  addr-spec            ; simple address
                    / [phrase] route-addr   ; name & addr-spec

         That is, the phrase preceding a route address is now OPTIONAL.
         This change makes the following header field legal, for
         example:

             From: <craig@nnsc.nsf.net>

This means that these are all legal addresses:

From: tucker@bedford.progress.com (Kyle Tucker)
From: "Kyle Tucker" <tucker@bedford.progress.com>
From: <tucker@bedford.progress.com>

I'd agree that adding the full name in some form is a good idea but I'm afraid
you can't use the standards as a stick.