🚀 go-pugleaf

Joe --

I agree with you that requiring a "phrase" token before a "route-addr"
makes no sense.  This was almost certainly an oversight in the specifi-
cation.  However, the fact remains that this is the way the standard was
written, and some mail systems (such as MMDF, apparently) do demand that
this part of the standard be obeyed strictly.  At this stage of the
game, I'm afraid that no amount of protest is going to result in any
changes to RFC822, however trivial they may seem (I know -- I've tried).

Given this reality, I would suggest the following course of action:

(1) When analyzing the headers in incoming mail, if you see an address
    consisting of a "route-addr" without a preceding "phrase", go ahead
    and accept it.  Some people, I know, may protest that the only way
    to enforce compliance with the standard is to adamantly complain
    about any and all violations; I choose not to take such a stand.

(2) When processing outgoing mail, if you see an address consisting of
    a "route-addr" without a preceding "phrase":

    (a) If the address is not a "source route" of the form <@A:B@C>,
	simply strip off the angle brackets; they are unnecessary.

    (b) If the address is a "source route", then you really should add
	something in front of the address; for lack of anything better,
	I would suggest copying the "local-part" of the address.  That
	is, an address like

		<@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA:wales@UCLA-CS.ARPA>

	would become

		wales <@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA:wales@UCLA-CS.ARPA>

While you're at it, by the way, I would suggest a similar approach to
the question of "phrase"s with periods in them.  That is, an address
like

		Richard B. Wales <wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>

violates the standard because of the period after the initial.  This
restriction has a little bit more to say in its favor (it seems that
allowing the period would complicate the parser and/or the lexer), but
enough hosts still generate such constructions -- whether out of lazi-
ness, rebellion, or lack of time, I will not venture a guess -- that it
is reasonable to recognize and accept them on incoming mail if possible.
(The appropriate action in the case of outgoing mail is to put double
quotes around the "phrase".)

-- Rich <wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>