email display as in To: header

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Dear MS Outlook experts,

I use MS Outlook 2002 SP3 in an organization (CWI -- Dutch Research
Institute for Computer Science) that is unix/linux mostly, certainly
regarding the email servers (no Exchange here). Lot's of Linux geeks here say
that I'm crazy, but I do not think am. I like MS Outlook for the great
Contacts/Calendar integration with my Windows Mobile phone.

That said, since upgrading to Outlook 2002 (from Outlook 2000) I have been
fighting with the way Outlook uses the "Email Display as" fields in the
Contacts database. The problem is that when send email to say Donald Duck
([email protected]), it produces the following To: header:

To: Donald Duck ([email protected])

This is a violation of the email RFC, which states that round parentheses
are comment fields only, to be ignored. Consequently, our SMTP server does
not recognize the '@' in the To: header of the outgoing email, and the email
address is treated as just the name part of an email, i.e. a local user, such
that the default domain (cwi.nl) gets appended to it, producing the
disfunctional result:

To: "Donald Duck ([email protected])"@cwi.nl

Note that if Outlook would comply with the email RFC, it should produce one
of the following three To: headers, which all would work:

(a) To: (e-mail address removed)
(b) To: Donald Duck [[email protected]]
(c) To: Donald Duck <[email protected]>

That is, the <> and [] brackets *are* allowed.

Of course I could edit my Outlook "display as" fields (using a macro or
such) to enforce one of the three forms, and in fact did so using option (a).
But this is a workaround only. The annoying thing is that when I enter a new
contact Outlook keeps inserting the wrong "display as" format, such that I
have to repeat the "cleansing" operation everytime I add a new contact.


Basically my woes could be remedied in two ways:

(1) by instructing Outlook to use the "email" field in To: headers as it
should (why else keep the email field at all) instead of the "display as".
Basically the "email" dield should be used by Outlook when interacting with
machines (ie SMTP servers) and "email as" when interacting with persons
(display on screen).

or:

(2) by somehow telling Outlook to use an alternative way to automatically
populate "display as" fields, following any format from (a), (b) or (c).


So, can any of (1) or (2) be achieved by a Outlook 2002 user??

many thanks in advance,

Peter
 
EDA affects local viewing only, so I've never seen any convincing need to
change it. What is inserted into the email header follows RFC convention.
What makes you feel you need to alter EDA?
 
Hi Russ,

Thanks for responding, but my experiences are contradictory to what you say.

(1) EDA does *not only* affect local viewing,but also the To: line as used
in outgoing SMTP email

(2) what is inserted into the email header does *not* follow RFC convention,
because it contains the email address in parentheses, i.e. ()

I think (1) because when I address an email to myself (making sure that I
use a hard non-recognized as contact email for myself, so Outlook does not
address it to an EDA) and I include my Outlook Contact 'Donald Duck' in the
To: or CC:; then observe the header (View -> Options -> textbox) I see the
messed up email address a la "Donald Duck ([email protected])"@cwi.nl

And Donald the Duck never receives that email.


I think (2), because the RFC says that everything in parentheses, i.e.
between (), is comment. The use of [] and <> as email delimiter, is allowed
though.

Peter




Russ Valentine said:
EDA affects local viewing only, so I've never seen any convincing need to
change it. What is inserted into the email header follows RFC convention.
What makes you feel you need to alter EDA?
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
Peter Boncz said:
Dear MS Outlook experts,

I use MS Outlook 2002 SP3 in an organization (CWI -- Dutch Research
Institute for Computer Science) that is unix/linux mostly, certainly
regarding the email servers (no Exchange here). Lot's of Linux geeks here
say
that I'm crazy, but I do not think am. I like MS Outlook for the great
Contacts/Calendar integration with my Windows Mobile phone.

That said, since upgrading to Outlook 2002 (from Outlook 2000) I have been
fighting with the way Outlook uses the "Email Display as" fields in the
Contacts database. The problem is that when send email to say Donald Duck
([email protected]), it produces the following To: header:

To: Donald Duck ([email protected])

This is a violation of the email RFC, which states that round parentheses
are comment fields only, to be ignored. Consequently, our SMTP server does
not recognize the '@' in the To: header of the outgoing email, and the
email
address is treated as just the name part of an email, i.e. a local user,
such
that the default domain (cwi.nl) gets appended to it, producing the
disfunctional result:

To: "Donald Duck ([email protected])"@cwi.nl

Note that if Outlook would comply with the email RFC, it should produce
one
of the following three To: headers, which all would work:

(a) To: (e-mail address removed)
(b) To: Donald Duck [[email protected]]
(c) To: Donald Duck <[email protected]>

That is, the <> and [] brackets *are* allowed.

Of course I could edit my Outlook "display as" fields (using a macro or
such) to enforce one of the three forms, and in fact did so using option
(a).
But this is a workaround only. The annoying thing is that when I enter a
new
contact Outlook keeps inserting the wrong "display as" format, such that I
have to repeat the "cleansing" operation everytime I add a new contact.


Basically my woes could be remedied in two ways:

(1) by instructing Outlook to use the "email" field in To: headers as it
should (why else keep the email field at all) instead of the "display as".
Basically the "email" dield should be used by Outlook when interacting
with
machines (ie SMTP servers) and "email as" when interacting with persons
(display on screen).

or:

(2) by somehow telling Outlook to use an alternative way to automatically
populate "display as" fields, following any format from (a), (b) or (c).


So, can any of (1) or (2) be achieved by a Outlook 2002 user??

many thanks in advance,

Peter
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It affects what _you_ see in the To: line. What the recipient sees depends
on how their email program displays the information contained in the email
header. The header will still contain both the familiar name and actual
email address. I still don't understand what changing the format of EDA
accomplishes for you.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
Peter Boncz said:
Hi Russ,

Thanks for responding, but my experiences are contradictory to what you
say.

(1) EDA does *not only* affect local viewing,but also the To: line as used
in outgoing SMTP email

(2) what is inserted into the email header does *not* follow RFC
convention,
because it contains the email address in parentheses, i.e. ()

I think (1) because when I address an email to myself (making sure that I
use a hard non-recognized as contact email for myself, so Outlook does not
address it to an EDA) and I include my Outlook Contact 'Donald Duck' in
the
To: or CC:; then observe the header (View -> Options -> textbox) I see the
messed up email address a la "Donald Duck
([email protected])"@cwi.nl

And Donald the Duck never receives that email.


I think (2), because the RFC says that everything in parentheses, i.e.
between (), is comment. The use of [] and <> as email delimiter, is
allowed
though.

Peter




Russ Valentine said:
EDA affects local viewing only, so I've never seen any convincing need to
change it. What is inserted into the email header follows RFC convention.
What makes you feel you need to alter EDA?
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
Peter Boncz said:
Dear MS Outlook experts,

I use MS Outlook 2002 SP3 in an organization (CWI -- Dutch Research
Institute for Computer Science) that is unix/linux mostly, certainly
regarding the email servers (no Exchange here). Lot's of Linux geeks
here
say
that I'm crazy, but I do not think am. I like MS Outlook for the great
Contacts/Calendar integration with my Windows Mobile phone.

That said, since upgrading to Outlook 2002 (from Outlook 2000) I have
been
fighting with the way Outlook uses the "Email Display as" fields in the
Contacts database. The problem is that when send email to say Donald
Duck
([email protected]), it produces the following To: header:

To: Donald Duck ([email protected])

This is a violation of the email RFC, which states that round
parentheses
are comment fields only, to be ignored. Consequently, our SMTP server
does
not recognize the '@' in the To: header of the outgoing email, and the
email
address is treated as just the name part of an email, i.e. a local
user,
such
that the default domain (cwi.nl) gets appended to it, producing the
disfunctional result:

To: "Donald Duck ([email protected])"@cwi.nl

Note that if Outlook would comply with the email RFC, it should produce
one
of the following three To: headers, which all would work:

(a) To: (e-mail address removed)
(b) To: Donald Duck [[email protected]]
(c) To: Donald Duck <[email protected]>

That is, the <> and [] brackets *are* allowed.

Of course I could edit my Outlook "display as" fields (using a macro or
such) to enforce one of the three forms, and in fact did so using
option
(a).
But this is a workaround only. The annoying thing is that when I enter
a
new
contact Outlook keeps inserting the wrong "display as" format, such
that I
have to repeat the "cleansing" operation everytime I add a new contact.


Basically my woes could be remedied in two ways:

(1) by instructing Outlook to use the "email" field in To: headers as
it
should (why else keep the email field at all) instead of the "display
as".
Basically the "email" dield should be used by Outlook when interacting
with
machines (ie SMTP servers) and "email as" when interacting with persons
(display on screen).

or:

(2) by somehow telling Outlook to use an alternative way to
automatically
populate "display as" fields, following any format from (a), (b) or
(c).


So, can any of (1) or (2) be achieved by a Outlook 2002 user??

many thanks in advance,

Peter
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top