From xemacs-m  Mon Sep 22 10:51:53 1997
Received: from wfdutilgw.ml.com (wfdutilf01.ml.com [206.3.74.31])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA03804
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:51:42 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ml1.ml.com ([199.201.57.130])
	by wfdutilgw.ml.com (8.8.7/8.8.7/MLgwo-3.04) with ESMTP id LAA09506
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:52:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from commpost.ml.com (commpost.ml.com [146.125.4.24])
	by ml1.ml.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/MLml4-2.07) with SMTP id LAA15469
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:51:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from spssunp.spspme.ml.com (spssunp.spspme.ml.com [192.168.111.13]) by commpost.ml.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA27008 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:51:11 -0400
Received: by spssunp.spspme.ml.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-4.1)
	id LAA25788; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:51:11 -0400
To: XEmacs Beta List <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: mail-extract-address-components bug?
References: <199709221443.KAA21644@pochacco.alphatech.com>
X-Face: ""xJff<P[R~C67]V?J|X^Dr`YigXK|;1wX<rt^>%{>hr-{:QXl"Xk2O@@(+F]e{"%EYQiW@mUuvEsL>=mx96j12qW[%m;|:B^n{J8k?Mz[K1_+H;$v,nYx^1o_=4M,L+]FIU~[[`-w~~xsy-BX,?tAF_.8u&0y*@aCv;a}Y'{w@#*@iwAl?oZpvvv
X-Y-Zippy: Here we are in America...  when do we collect unemployment?
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="pgp-sign-Multipart_Mon_Sep_22_11:51:03_1997-1"; micalg=pgp-md5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com>
Date: 22 Sep 1997 11:51:09 -0400
In-Reply-To: greg@alphatech.com's message of "Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:43:12 -0400"
Message-ID: <ocrg1qx1h5e.fsf@ml.com>
Lines: 49
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.3(beta22) - "Minsk"

--pgp-sign-Multipart_Mon_Sep_22_11:51:03_1997-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Greg Klanderman writes:

> is this a bug or feature?

Feature!

> (mail-extract-address-components
>  "kimeric@foobar.com (Kim Scott & Eric Tucker)")

> gives:

> ("Kim Scott Kimeric Eric Tucker" "kimeric@foobar.com")

> note in the full-name, the ampersand (`&') got replaced with
> the email address.

Believe it or not, this is correct.  I assume it has something to do
with a false sense of saving bandwidth.

The really foolish thing about it is that RFC 822 is filled with
examples that use `&' in the "To:" in the expected sense.

If someone could tell me how this bogosity started, I would really
appreciate it.

-- 
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)

--pgp-sign-Multipart_Mon_Sep_22_11:51:03_1997-1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBNCaT6aCXWENFE/FpAQECvQQAnZnzpRYw7smGh5vzWmD/mOHEn22UNvM1
pk0MNvcPhibGjPQdRyeq9zkDcHUJOGftGrMmyQ15kGjXOLNeN85CTaG0Fa3+z4DL
PrxODZOabh9ND5CAtUm+8eejma1GYo8suDNyCuAvfJM175qLPsvJuIuS4EC7BhGW
wo9qBngQOS0=
=hfgU
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

--pgp-sign-Multipart_Mon_Sep_22_11:51:03_1997-1--

