From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/87045 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Naim\, Halim." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Outlook rejecting messages because not RFC 5322 Compliant Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 08:25:17 -0400 Message-ID: <8737piw5oy.fsf@gmail.com> References: <57379ba7.2a138c0a.aa341.01ac@mx.google.com> <87oa86z542.fsf@tullinup.koldfront.dk> <87a8jqw7o4.fsf@gmail.com> <8760ueyzpg.fsf@tullinup.koldfront.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1463401577 30294 80.91.229.3 (16 May 2016 12:26:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 12:26:17 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M35266@lists.math.uh.edu Mon May 16 14:26:04 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.208]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1b2Hau-0002KA-Tp for ding-account@gmane.org; Mon, 16 May 2016 14:25:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by lists1.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b2HaW-0007jj-0D; Mon, 16 May 2016 07:25:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by lists1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b2HaT-0007jF-Qv for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Mon, 16 May 2016 07:25:29 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b2HaS-00023l-FJ for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Mon, 16 May 2016 07:25:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-qk0-f181.google.com ([209.85.220.181]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1b2HaQ-0004FP-N5 for ding@gnus.org; Mon, 16 May 2016 14:25:27 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-qk0-f181.google.com with SMTP id x7so95065178qkd.3 for ; Mon, 16 May 2016 05:25:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version; bh=4osSNNdeXZmEPVRt6vi9yFherO5tGJ61CWSchf/7h8I=; b=CIY/ExjN+7sWODvPbBRK1oacCJt+woGYURrwVb2U3h6aBZzcnSb5UZ2S7kiJjAvQbg yS7SwTembEN1bYK5h0KIxfOhaUIgpn8UIpaiO3/3U71xPVYtd7tF7hi2IVxfU7UciQz8 AncfvIuRpApHFMCTxTM96Qaiq3YqBu1bTxyvVjvUgNQ8De7+lHPrmnl/JHM/YEyr75M8 CPqy9DrwJrwLDAZBpIsoKJpm9K98srtCITZmpJ/cveMAsNDGIRoW198RXWtt4GKbLjL7 p8Wxpf/nXtSv0m2Ri4wOrr6nzW2YF8z/5kgX/jXhKdurUcjKD8x/k20Hs03GhxxCWiZI FUxw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=4osSNNdeXZmEPVRt6vi9yFherO5tGJ61CWSchf/7h8I=; b=kxOag9RUg6OdIBOWu68JOx54YGbWjG3wrzTlu+hNUGwBM3wfYHDNOE+paDkRMbrO2D FVJh4U0trrEakbA3xinaX9zVwjGttD4SNL/+jF+wKLust6vcWuwxA0wZR8CvjKDdAVY1 Am81d4G8hV5OMWiUD20nU6owQHj3S9Dmnt9AOXWUMl3vtAEDQCDQXI9/40oAwG99q17R yPpMDJ1Df6YF0qpbyne7ucld7Tj3HPnRgygU5nTBjGX6MsWcygbgEAVO8p7nuDxmNCpV 4yjRp0DFAIE5LTGAF1fvGgOaBVEum8kseZbRluZ/oSZTf1oC+n37kBfL0iweL3mQMiuy jPKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVfsOGRjQr8L5iph/kMfSFJX2XdqDvvGbFQSyJJE9jkl4vxHa7Y2ebe4LNO4TbUVw== X-Received: by 10.233.221.66 with SMTP id r63mr29760695qkf.87.1463401520063; Mon, 16 May 2016 05:25:20 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (186-88-105-221.genericrev.cantv.net. [186.88.105.221]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 125sm14810879qki.30.2016.05.16.05.25.18 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 May 2016 05:25:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8760ueyzpg.fsf@tullinup.koldfront.dk> ("Adam \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Sj\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?\=C3\=B8gren\=22's\?\= message of "Mon, 16 May 2016 14:06:19 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: -3.0 (---) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:87045 Archived-At: I think this is the relevan section (3.4) of the RFC: ---- |3.4. Address Specification | | Addresses occur in several message header fields to indicate senders | and recipients of messages. An address may either be an individual | mailbox, or a group of mailboxes. | | address = mailbox / group | | mailbox = name-addr / addr-spec | | name-addr = [display-name] angle-addr | | angle-addr = [CFWS] "<" addr-spec ">" [CFWS] / | obs-angle-addr | | group = display-name ":" [group-list] ";" [CFWS] | | display-name = phrase | | mailbox-list = (mailbox *("," mailbox)) / obs-mbox-list | | address-list = (address *("," address)) / obs-addr-list | | group-list = mailbox-list / CFWS / obs-group-list --- In the same section, there is a note: ---- | Note: Some legacy implementations used the simple form where the | addr-spec appears without the angle brackets, but included the | name of the recipient in parentheses as a comment following the | addr-spec. Since the meaning of the information in a comment is | unspecified, implementations SHOULD use the full name-addr form of | the mailbox, instead of the legacy form, to specify the display | name associated with a mailbox. Also, because some legacy | implementations interpret the comment, comments generally SHOULD | NOT be used in address fields to avoid confusing such | implementations. ---- I believe the header being rejected does not conform to this syntax. I may be wrong as I have no experience with reading RFCs. The Note seems to describe this case.