for the base specification, I would like a tiny change to make this
a little more apparent:
For instance, the test `header :contains ["To", "Cc"]
- ["me(_at_)example(_dot_)com",
"me00(_at_)landru(_dot_)example(_dot_)edu"]' is true if either the
+ ["me(_at_)example(_dot_)com",
"me00(_at_)landru(_dot_)example(_dot_)edu"]' is true if either a
To header or Cc header of the input message contains either of the
email addresses "me(_at_)example(_dot_)com" or
"me00(_at_)landru(_dot_)example(_dot_)edu".
Seems like a good idea to me.
I'm repeating it once more so Philip may take note of it :-).
also in the latest draft is this:
The preferred way to test whether a given header is either empty or
absent is to combine an "exists" test and a "header" test:
anyof (header :is "Cc" "", not exists "Cc")
this will evaluate to true for:
Cc: someone(_at_)example(_dot_)org
Cc:
it may not be worth considering this rather degenerate case. it seems
to me Bcc is a more likely candidate for the stated test. however, one
way of stating the test correctly is:
not (header :matches "Cc" "?*")
it's not much more convoluted, so I think it is worthwhile to change the
"preferred way".
--
Kjetil T.