[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Questions regarding RFC 5228

2008-10-21 17:14:03

Mark E. Mallett writes:
Yes, Arnt's test should not attempt to combine "list-id" with "to" and "cc". I suspect that was just a quick mistake.

I wrote the example in the natural, readable way on purpose.

But there's a good point in there (not about converting the format, but about the lack of an '@'). My implementation does not require an '@' in any address in an address test. If an '@' is missing, :localpart and :domain do not return anything, but :all returns the entire string. I believe this is correct behavior according to RFC5228 (but even if it weren't, I'd make it work that way anyway, since I'd want it to be useful rather than fail). The list-id header field has a well defined format that conforms to the way my implementation extracts addreses, and so I feel happy using the address test against List-ID. e.g.:

So you're saying it should be okay to use the address test for non-address-fields, except that :user and :domain might not work at all, and :all might work differently from the way it usually works?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>