Re: history of using a comment for display-name?

"Maynard Kang" <> Mon, 12 March 2001 16:26 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id LAA13272 for <>; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:26:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA28106; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:25:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: by (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:25:08 -0500
Received: by (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA28084; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:25:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (marvin@localhost) by with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA28058; Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:24:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( -> by (smtpshim v1.0); Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:25:00 -0500
Received: from maynardibm (unknown []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B933A890B; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:22:58 +0800 (SGT)
Message-ID: <00b201c0ab10$f50006e0$0200000a@maynardibm>
From: Maynard Kang <>
To: Keith Moore <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: history of using a comment for display-name?
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:23:05 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
List-Unsubscribe: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> nope.  that's not what section 3.4.3 means.

So what does it exactly mean then? Perhaps Dave would be the better person
to answer this. The way I interpret it is that comments should be shown
when the message is being read, but should not be used when the message is
being transmitted.

> in practice, comments were the "preferred form" of representing names
> for many years after RFC 822 was published.  this was due to several
> reasons:
> - there were rumors of old mailers still in use that couldn't handle a
>   phrase before the address
> - Usenet (RFC 1036) used comments, didn't support phrase, and gateways
>   between mail and news were fairly common.
> - many mailers could be configured to automatically add a name as a
>   phrase but would not quote that name if it contained special
>   characters (most notably ".") - thus mailers configured to use
>   phrase for name developed a reputation for producing badly
>   formed messages.
> - people didn't update their old files, thus use of
>   comments for names remained quite common and thus seemed "normal".

I guess as a developer of e-mail software I find it mildly irritating that
I've always had to write code to support both the "phrase route-addr" and
"addr-spec (comments)" formats in e-mail headers. You can imagine the
problem getting worse when dealing with non-ASCII in headers.. Some
non-compliant mail software just insert double-byte characters liberally
into the phrase component (and to make matters worse, quote the string, and
escape out other quotes within the string which may be part of a
double-byte character!)

This might be flogging a dead horse, but I think we should state, in any
update to RFC 822, that the "phrase route-addr" format MUST be supported
and that comments in addr-spec are NOT RECOMMENDED. It seems to me that the
problems you have described above are more or less legacy problems that
aren't so significant nowadays. Then again, I cannot be sure. Perhaps the
rest of the working group has additional comments.