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.
What you'll probably have to do is write similar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hey :-)
On 21.01.2010 19:17, Roberto -MadBob- Guido wrote:
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()).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 21.01.2010 19:57, Tobias Mueller wrote:
I'd be delighted to see an implementation that parses all corner cases,
i.e. foo/bar=...@example.com or !foo%bar?baz*...@example.com, correctly.
That might be a challenging Summer of Code assignment
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 20:17 +0100, Roberto -MadBob- Guido wrote:
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?
Please read my comment to
Tobias Mueller wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 21.01.2010 19:57, Tobias Mueller wrote:
I'd be delighted to see an implementation that parses all corner cases,
i.e. foo/bar=...@example.com or !foo%bar?baz*...@example.com, correctly.
That might be a
$RFC822PAT = 'EOF';
[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\
(etc)
I want a T-Shirt with that!
I wonder what the RFC822 authors were smoking. Or is it possible to
implement a correct RFC822 email address pattern matcher in code in a
significantly simpler way than
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 15:16 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
Please read my comment to the bug report
I've read, and you noticed something I didn't: it already exists a
policy to validate a mail address, in the New Account wizard (more
exactly: is_email() in mail/em-account-editor.c).
It is
