On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 13:22 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > That won't actually work (at least not very well). The Camel address > decoding functions assume their input is supposed to be valid and so > it > will do whatever it has to do to make it work. It would have to be > extremely broken for it to fail. > Is this behaviour the desired one by design, or it is just broken?
> What you'll probably have to do is write similar functionality that is > much more strict in what it accepts. > In the first version of the patch ( http://bugzilla-attachments.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=146701 ) I've provided a routine built on regular expressions (regcomp() and regexec()). Opinions about that? -- Roberto -MadBob- Guido http://claimid.com/madbob _______________________________________________ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolutionemail@example.com http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers