Thanks for a bug report. Could you elaborate more, please? Specifically, when editing a contact, there is "File under" combo, where one can select how the contacts should be presented in the "File under" column of the table.

The bug #794151 is about the combo not being editable, which will be fixed in the next version of evolution (the patch from there can be applied manually, as long as you can write to the system files).

With respect of sorting, if First name/last name is not in the list view, right-click the header with the column names and choose "Add Column". You can drag&drop missing columns to the view, then you can click the column you want to sort the list by, and when you also hold Ctrl it'll add to the sorting. If you use the Address Cards view, then it truly sorts by "File under" only.

Thank you for your answer. Maybe the description wasn't clear enough, or maybe this bug should be filed on the Automatic Contacts plugin.

I have seen that automatic contacts always get filed as "Last name, First name", and this is the default setting when one creates a contact. I am however unsure whether Automatic Contacts specifies this filing format, or if it just gives the information to the address book, where it is filed in such a manner.

I think it would be useful then, to be able to change what the default contact filing format is.

Oh, do you speak about the Automatic Contacts only? I didn't get any clue about it from the original summary, neither from the comment #0.

I agree with you that it makes sense to let the user decide which order should be used when creating the contacts there, let the default be "Last, First". Do you think there should be any other format as well? I cannot think of anything other than:
   Last, First
   First Last

which are the default offered options when creating a new contact which has only the First and the Last names filled. (The second is really without comma.)
Having only two values, I'd probably make it a boolean, something like:

    [ ] Set File under as "First Last", instead of "Last, First"

(In reply to Milan Crha from comment #3)
> Oh, do you speak about the Automatic Contacts only? I didn't get any clue
> about it from the original summary, neither from the comment #0.

Sorry, at first I was quite positive on that this was not an issue isolated to Automatic Contacts, but to evolution itself, so I didn't mention it in the description / comment #0.
 
> I agree with you that it makes sense to let the user decide which order
> should be used when creating the contacts there, let the default be "Last,
> First". Do you think there should be any other format as well? I cannot
> think of anything other than:
>    Last, First
>    First Last
>
> which are the default offered options when creating a new contact which has
> only the First and the Last names filled. (The second is really without
> comma.)
> Having only two values, I'd probably make it a boolean, something like:
> 
>     [ ] Set File under as "First Last", instead of "Last, First"

Well, I could think of some other formats, just for the sake of it, but to be honest I would be satisfied with "First Last" format. (Needless to say, I can't speak for the rest of the user-base.)
Some other formats I can think of, combined with the ones available are:
 - Last [Suffix], [Title] First [Second]
 - [Title] First [Second] Last [Suffix]
 - Nickname OR Last [Suffix], [Title] First [Second]
 - Nickname OR [Title] First [Second] Last [Suffix]
Where the strings within brackets could be managed with boolean options.
The last two options are for people who prefer rather informal contact names, but fall back on a standard format when the Nickname is not available.

Remember, we are talking about contacts which are created from the sender's address, which usually looks like "First Last <last@no.where>". There are people with titles/suffixes for sure, I've one such in my recipients too, but it's pretty hard to "encode" also Nickname into the recipient email address.

Also, "title first" is not good for sorting, from my point of view. I can understand that you want all Milans group together, then all Severos together, and so on, but not if they mix up also with the title. Just my opinion.

I also cannot talk for all the users, not mentioning that one cannot satisfy everyone :)

I added the option as described at the end of comment #3, thus the simplified version. As it contains new translatable strings and the UI changed, I cannot commit it to the stable, branch, thus committed only into the development branch.

Created commit 6127b49fb8 in evo master (3.29.1+)

Fair enough, thanks for the commit!