On 31 August 2015 at 13:10, Ken Hornstein <kenh(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com> wrote:
I run into this at work, primarily from a co-worker running Mutt. While I
pointed out that this is not valid and pointed to the spec, he has not
fixed it as it does not break for anyone else.
How hard would it be to enhance the code to not error out in this
situation. There is a valid e-mail address present.
I thought we did fix it? At least for some cases; take a gander at
the address parser code and you'll see what I mean.
As for fixing it ... take a gander at the address parser code, that
should answer your question.
My upgrade from 1.5 to 1.6 didn't change anything related to my
initial observation.
Thanks....
--
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers