I'd prefer RFC822 compliance. I have no way to judge whether a
compatibility mode for sun's implementation would be needed but would
prefer not to complicate our code with it if at all possible.
thanks
david jencks
On Jan 4, 2006, at 4:07 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
I'm trying to write a fuller implementation of the
InternetAddress.parseHeader() method for the Geronimo javamail
implementation. I've been writing some tests to see how the Sun
javamail implementation is handling various addresses, and then
rolling these tests into the Geronimo junit tests for InternetAddress.
While doing this, I ran the existing junit tests against the Sun
javamail package and discovered that the Sun version failed some of
the Geronimo unit tests! Specifically, any of the group address
tests in InternetAddressTest where the group did not contain a
leading phrase did not get recognized as a group address. Thus the
tests for ":[EMAIL PROTECTED];" and ":[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED];" failed when
run against the Sun javamail version.
It would be fairly simple to fix the Geronimo version to match the
Sun results and fix the tests as well, but I'm not convinced that
either version is handling this correctly. RFC822 specifies that
the tag phrase before the ":" in an address is required. So
":[EMAIL PROTECTED];" is not a valid group, but "group:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" is. The
Geronimo versions appears to be incorrect, both in the
implementation and the unit test.
However, according the Sun version is parsing ":[EMAIL PROTECTED];" as
being a simple internet address, retaining both the ":" and ";" as
part of the address. Strict conformance to RFC822 would consider
this to be an error rather than a simple address, and I don't
believe most mail servers would accept that syntax.
So, what should I target here? Compatibility with the Sun version,
or conformance to the RFC822 specification?
Rick
