[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The state I'm in - rfc 822 parsing.
From: |
Sam Roberts |
Subject: |
Re: The state I'm in - rfc 822 parsing. |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:26:25 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.16i |
Quoting Alain Magloire <address@hidden>, who wrote:
> >
> > > > If I find the awful comment, I put it where I would have
> > > > put a phrase.
> > >
> > > Seems you actually remove comments totaly.
> > > Some clients may want them right. Especially in the "Received:"
> >
> > Uh, GetMailBox() grabs the comment and puts in the personal,
> > doesn't it? I don't have the source in front of me, but
> > if what I sent you doesn't do that I sent the wrong diff.
>
> # ./addr
> alain(the squirrel fighter)@qnx.com
> alain(the squirrel fighter)@qnx.com=> pcount 1
> 1 email <address@hidden>
> local-part <alain> domain <qnx.com>
That's awful. Is that really desireable? It's explicitly non-compliant.
The code parses rfc822 syntax, with the specific exception of also
grabbing:
address@hidden (the soon to be victorious squirrel fighter)
*One* comment, *after* the addr-spec. If you really think
it's useful to read
alain(the)@( squirrel)qnx.( fighter)com ==
alain(the squirrel fighter)@qnx.com ==
address@hidden (the squirrel fighter) ==
the squirrel fighter <address@hidden>
then we'll talk after I've done the other clean ups
which actually impact parsing of *RFC822* email addresses,
as opposed to "whatever somebody thought would be cool"
email addresses.
> Actually, I'm off topic with the Received field, since I do
> not think anyone will use it in address_create().
I've got a date-time parser as well in Mail++, I might slap
that and a Received header field parser in next.
> > > > - <>, valid in SMTP "rcpt from:", should I parse and ignore it?
> > >
> > > I vote strip. Since I want to reuse the email part to build the "From "
> > > string separator for Unix Mbox.
> >
> > By strip, you mean parse and ignore? If I parse and ignore, this
> > would be a list with two addresses: address@hidden, <>, address@hidden
>
> Yes, which sounds reasonnable, no?
> for exemple:
> To: Alain M. <address@hidden>
> I would expect address_get_email () --> "address@hidden".
Oops, I guess that wasn't clear.
I really meant an address of "<>". This is a legal rfc821
address, it's mandated for returning undeliverable messages, among
other things, and is used by vmail, for one, in the smtp dialog when
you bounce a message, i.e.
mail from:<>
rcpt to:<address@hidden>
data
..
I started the cleanup last week, I'll send you more patches after
I've got a bunch farther, rather than little diffs. Just so
you know I haven't abandoned this.
Sam
p.s. I thought you were hunting squirrels, not wooing them!
--
Sam Roberts <address@hidden>
- Virtual User/Alternative Authorization Methods, (continued)
- Virtual User/Alternative Authorization Methods, Jeff Breitner, 2001/03/14
- Re: Virtual User/Alternative Authorization Methods, Jeremy C. Reed, 2001/03/15
- Re: Virtual User/Alternative Authorization Methods, Alain Magloire, 2001/03/15
- Re: Virtual User/Alternative Authorization Methods, Jeremy C. Reed, 2001/03/15
- Re: Virtual User/Alternative Authorization Methods, Alain Magloire, 2001/03/15
Re: The state I'm in - rfc 822 parsing., Sam Roberts, 2001/03/14
Message not available