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

From: Larry Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 22:27:07 -0500

On Tuesday, March 13, 2001, at 12:09 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:

> >>>>> "Larry" == Larry Osterman <[email-masked]> writes: 
>     Larry> And then there's my old friend (used by a popular client at one point) 
>  
>     Larry> From: Foo@domain (Return Reciept Requested) 
>  
>   I've never heard of this. 

This was actually standardized in RFC1327 (and partially deprecated in its followon, RFC2156). It's a way for X.400 gateways to represent service elements not available in RFC822. In X.400, one could specify options like "Receipt Notification Requested" and "Reply Requested" on a per-recipient basis. An RFC2156-compliant gateway would append these options to each address as a comment.

---

From: Laurence Lundblade <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:44:03 -0800

Any one special cased "Return Receipt Requested"? That is consider the 
comment a full name it it's not that. Never met a "Mr/Ms/Mrs Requested" and 
don't think "Return" is a popular first name in any language. Even if that 
mistake is made, it's not very serious. Pine and other mailers promote the 
comment to full name on a regular basis and certain mailers like Elm still 
put the full name in a comment.

LL

At 10:27 PM 3/13/2001 -0500, Larry Campbell wrote:
>This was actually standardized in RFC1327 (and partially deprecated in its 
>followon, RFC2156). It's a way for X.400 gateways to represent service 
>elements not available in RFC822. In X.400, one could specify options like 
>"Receipt Notification Requested" and "Reply Requested" on a per-recipient 
>basis. An RFC2156-compliant gateway would append these options to each 
>address as a comment.