On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 03:25:05PM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > it's reasonable to complain about errors in the envelope info, but this > > shouldn't preclude the line from being treated as a message separator, > > or affect whether the message is considered fundamentally valid.
I agree with this. > > so by extension this patch must be considered over-engineered for the > > purpose. Yes. I seem to recall having a discussion about the from line's exact format being unpredictable, and for that reason (IIRC) mutt quite intentionally did not try to parse it. Too much variation in too many clients, and also the info in it was not interesting. IIRC the date in a From_ line is not interesting because the e-mail should carry the Date header, and the from line's date may indicate nothing especially useful, if it even exists, which is not required. I haven't had a chance to try to dig up that conversation... but my money is on it being in the list archives somewhere. > We could change is_from() to return true for a line starting with "From " > followed by something, parsable or not. I think so. > But also change it to use the new reverse_scan() function, since > that parses out a date/time in cases where the old scanner would > not. Why? -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
