Re: mail-extract-address-components extract modified full name

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>]

Yoichi NAKAYAMA <yoichi@geiin.org> writes:

> By the way, I think it would be better that canonicalization of full
> name is done outside and the extracting function just return full name
> as it is.  It is because full-name canonicalization code strongly
> depends on language, culture and custom to describe names(*1), and
> dividing those two features will allow more general use of
> `mail-extract-address-components'.

I think in most instances using `mail-extract-address-components' is
probably the wrong thing.  It doesn't really do RFC(2)822 parsing --
it just takes something that looks pretty much like a mail address
and a name and tries to do something pleasing with it, even if it
isn't in the least valid as a RFC2822 address.

"手塚 治 <foo@bar.com>", for instance, isn't a valid address.  (It
has to be encoded first.)

So I'm not sure that this function should be altered.

On the other hand, if what you want is RFC2822 address parsing, we
have `mail-header-parse-address', which does strict parsing, and
nothing else.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen