On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:58:45PM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
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.
Sorry, I was just making a charitable guess. Natural, readable examples
are good, but not when they don't work. It certainly begged the point
that Kjetil Torgrim Homme raised, i.e., that it would require some
magical conversion of the address string in order to make any sense.
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?
No, I'm saying that the address test should work the same way all the
time when it finds an address. I don't get what you are saying there.
mm