(In reply to Alessandro Castellani [:aleca] from Bug 1774386 Comment 8) > I don't think the "fake display name" is an actual problem. The problem is Thunderbird injecting stuff into my contact data which I haven't asked for. > We need to fill up the display name field with something if we only have an email in order to have a decently styled default list. That's an implementation-level argument, and it's technically not true. Up to Thunderbird 91, Thunderbird would show the local part as a fallback in the list, but never touch my contact data. > Users willingly deleting the display name, Well, local parts of email addresses don't always make a good display name which I want in my data, so deleting what I've never entered seems plausible. > and not having any first/last/nickname value but only wanting the email address is a bit of an oddity that I'm not sure we want to support. Alas, email-only contacts without display name happen all the time in the real world, e.g. in Thunderbird's collected addresses... We have no right to interfere with user's contact data upon editing. > The automatically filled display name is needed to have something to show in the vcard and message header. I doubt that - this has never been a problem all the way up to TB 91. > Users should then change that to fit their needs, but only having the email without any name whatsoever is very strange. What would be the needed use case? No, Thunderbird should not interfere with my data and thus force me into providing a better display name at a time when I'm not ready for it. As explained above, display-name less contacts just happen *all the time* in the real world, quite easily.
Bug 1776294 Comment 2 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to Alessandro Castellani [:aleca] from Bug 1774386 Comment 8) > I don't think the "fake display name" is an actual problem. The problem is Thunderbird injecting stuff into my contact data which I haven't asked for. > We need to fill up the display name field with something if we only have an email in order to have a decently styled default list. That's an implementation-level argument, and it's technically not true. Up to Thunderbird 91, Thunderbird would show the local part as a fallback in the list, but never touch my contact data. Even 102 is already showing the local part in the list *before* it has been saved to the actual contact data. > Users willingly deleting the display name, Well, local parts of email addresses don't always make a good display name which I want in my data, so deleting what I've never entered seems plausible. > and not having any first/last/nickname value but only wanting the email address is a bit of an oddity that I'm not sure we want to support. Alas, email-only contacts without display name happen all the time in the real world, e.g. in Thunderbird's collected addresses... We have no right to interfere with user's contact data upon editing. > The automatically filled display name is needed to have something to show in the vcard and message header. I doubt that - this has never been a problem all the way up to TB 91. > Users should then change that to fit their needs, but only having the email without any name whatsoever is very strange. What would be the needed use case? No, Thunderbird should not interfere with my data and thus force me into providing a better display name at a time when I'm not ready for it. As explained above, display-name less contacts just happen *all the time* in the real world, quite easily.