Request: MailboxAddress constructor for email part only

[nvivo]

This sounds like a silly request and there may be a reason why this wasn't implemented this way, so sorry in advance.

In most applications when I send an email I have only the address part. This looks like a very common case and the RFC seems to accept the addr-spec as a mailbox, but MailboxAddress requires both name and address.

Either InternetAddress.Parse("foo@bar.com") and new MailboxAddress(String.Empty, "foo@bar.com) return a similar MailboxAddress object, so any reason to not simply support new MailboxAddress("foo@bar.com")?

Thanks.

[jstedfast]

Very few people seem to care about creating MailboxAddresses w/o a name, so I didn't bother to add .ctors for that.

That said, sure, I can add them...

[nvivo]

You're fast! Thanks!

[jstedfast]

So the problem is that it turns out a lot of people thought that a MailboxAddress .ctor that takes only a single string argument is meant to parse out the name and address from that single string.

I think I'm going to [Obsolete] this .ctor and tell people to use MailboxAddress.Parse() instead to eliminate confusion and bad habits.

[nvivo]

Wouldn't adding a comment on the method be better? It's your call, but since the RFC allows the email only, the implementation is correct. Removing that and forcing the null argument instead of just letting people fix their code sound wrong.

I'd propose simply adding the comment on the method and people should see when choosing the overload.

[jstedfast]

You can still pass null or string.Empty as the 'name' argument to the existing .ctor