Message-Id: <0d30dc$ktd0ab@orsmga001.jf.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 12:37:55 +0000
To: Jake Edge <jake@lwn.net>, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a few tests for searching LWN emails.
References: <1296124309-20072-1-git-send-email-thomas@schwinge.name>
	<87vd18n6j9.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<20110128151754.57a98fa8@chukar>
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20110128151754.57a98fa8@chukar>
Cc: lwn@lwn.net, notmuch@notmuchmail.org,
	Thomas Schwinge <thomas@schwinge.name>
Precedence: list

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:17:54 -0700, Jake Edge <jake@lwn.net> wrote:
> Hi Carl and Thomas, 
> 
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 05:59:38 +1000 Carl Worth wrote:
> 
> > Yes, I believe this is related to the dot in the name. From my
> > recollection a name with an address requires quoting. So the header
> > that is currently formatted as:
> > 
> > 	From: LWN.net Weekly Notification <lwn@lwn.net>
> > 
> > should instead be:
> > 
> > 	From: "LWN.net Weekly Notification" <lwn@lwn.net>
> 
> I am by no means an expert, but http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt
> would seem to indicate that names with a '.' in them don't need to be
> quoted as there are several lines in the Scenarios section that look
> like:
> 
> C: From: John Q. Public <JQP@bar.com>
> 
> unless the problem is XXX.yyy (i.e. no spaces on either side of the
> '.'), but that seems like a pretty arbitrary differentiator (i.e. 'Q. '
> is fine, but 'LWN.net' isn't)

The syntax is defined in http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html in
particular section 3.2.4. From that it appears the unquoted use of
[a-Z][.a-Z]* is valid. However, I shall leave the intricacies to those
whose understand and appreciate the whole problem...
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre