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

Evolution-hackers mailing list

Reply via email to