Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

>No, Microsoft are definitely in the wrong if they are producing emails >*today* that use email addresses like «Dr. Foo » or >«foo.bar ». And they need to be told! ;-) Hang on to any >examples that could be passed to them otherwise I'm going to look a >"someone on

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

>but in the particular case of this thread, it sounds like including >the '.' in the middle of a contiguous name isn't a bug, according to >ken, right? or did i mis-read all that? W it's all about how strict you want to be. So, to recap. - An email address is: name-addr =

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

Hi Ken, > So ... any MUA that generates an obs-phrase is NOT RFC-compliant, but > any MUA that doesn't interpret it is ALSO not RFC-compliant. So we > can't really complain to others about RFC violations when we're not > RFC compliant. Course we can. We don't have to tell them we're having

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

Hi Andy, > > ab...@microsoft.com ? I've just tweeted https://twitter.com/outlook > > to ask. > > Thanks, however, given your interpretation of the RFC, it's > possible that this is no longer necessary. No, Microsoft are definitely in the wrong if they are producing emails *today* that use

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

Ken Hornstein writes: >>That means your From: (and my From:...) should not have been generated >>anymore, because we have two unquoted words in front of the angle-addr? > > Ralph didn't include the full RFC grammar, but here are the rules in > relatively plain English: > > - A

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

Date:Wed, 02 Sep 2015 22:54:17 -0400 From:Ken Hornstein Message-ID: <20150903025418.3961818...@pb-smtp0.pobox.com> | We reject those addresses in the nmh address parser as invalid (what | you're seeing in repl is really just the result of failed

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

Well said Robert. On Sep 2, 2015 22:40, "Robert Elz" wrote: > Date:Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:10:41 -0400 > From:Ken Hornstein > Message-ID: <20150902151041.e981115...@pb-smtp0.pobox.com> > > | but any MUA that doesn't interpret it is

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

>Aside from when it would be used to generate an address, which without >modifying them by adding quotes (or otherwise, perhaps by just dropping >the phrase completely) would be improper, what are those other >situations? > >I haven't been able to find anything that doesn't work exactly as I

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

>That's legal - nothing in the RFCs says what you have to do with bogus >address when they're received, but not as friendly as perhaps we'd prefer - >if the previous case can get quoted, then this one perhaps could as well. Respectfully ... I disagree with that statement. RFC 5322, §4, says:

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

Date:Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:10:41 -0400 From:Ken Hornstein Message-ID: <20150902151041.e981115...@pb-smtp0.pobox.com> | but any MUA that doesn't interpret it is ALSO not RFC-compliant. I just ran a couple of tests, and couldn't find anything

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

ralph wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > but does anyone have way to submit bug reports to Microsoft regarding > > this? > > ab...@microsoft.com ? I've just tweeted https://twitter.com/outlook to > ask. but in the particular case of this thread, it sounds like including the '.' in the middle of a

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

Thus said Ralph Corderoy on Wed, 02 Sep 2015 10:33:48 +0100: > ab...@microsoft.com ? I've just tweeted https://twitter.com/outlook to > ask. Thanks, however, given your interpretation of the RFC, it's possible that this is no longer necessary. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 400055e6fc4b

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

Hi Andy, > but does anyone have way to submit bug reports to Microsoft regarding > this? ab...@microsoft.com ? I've just tweeted https://twitter.com/outlook to ask. http://www.groovypost.com/howto/send-feedback-outlook-dot-com-microsoft/ says there's an "Outlook feedback" option once you're

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

Thus said Lyndon Nerenberg on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:37:55 -0700: > Maybe you should file a bug report with the offender? One of the biggest offenders is Microsoft Exchange. When it has a distribution list name made up with dots, it does not quote them. So you end up with: dl.name

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

>name-addr = [display-name] angle-addr >display-name = phrase >phrase= 1*word / obs-phrase >obs-phrase= word *(word / "." / CFWS) >word = atom / quoted-string >atom = [CFWS] 1*atext [CFWS] >atext = # One of A-Z, a-z,

[Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

Hi folks, Should an email address of this form From: first.last produce an error like this: repl: bad addresses: first.last -- no at-sign after local-part (<) My relevant ~/.mh_profile content is: formatproc: replyfilter repl: -annotate

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

> From: first.last > >produce an error like this: > >repl: bad addresses: > first.last -- no at-sign after local-part (<) That is, technically, not a valid address. The 'real name' part should contain quotes around it. Although I thought we

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

I run into this at work, primarily from a co-worker running Mutt. While I pointed out that this is not valid and pointed to the spec, he has not fixed it as it does not break for anyone else. How hard would it be to enhance the code to not error out in this situation. There is a valid e-mail

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

>I run into this at work, primarily from a co-worker running Mutt. While I >pointed out that this is not valid and pointed to the spec, he has not >fixed it as it does not break for anyone else. > >How hard would it be to enhance the code to not error out in this >situation. There is a valid

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

"Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you accept" Perhaps the most mis-interpreted aphorism of all time. What Jon meant was "don't crash when your code encounters garbage input," and was written in the context of the IMPs tipping over when receiving invalid packets. It

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

Hi, Lyndon wrote: > What Jon meant was "don't crash when your code encounters garbage > input," and was written in the context of the IMPs tipping over when > receiving invalid packets. It *never* meant "second guess the > sender's intent and patch accordingly." Right. And ISTM an even worse

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Right. And ISTM an even worse idea to attempt that in today's world of > folks trying to exploit flaws. If they can't follow our RFCs, we don't > want their emails! ;-) > I'll tell my boss that, I'm sure he'll

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

>> "Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you accept" > >Perhaps the most mis-interpreted aphorism of all time. > >What Jon meant was "don't crash when your code encounters garbage input," >and was written in the context of the IMPs tipping over when receiving >invalid packets. It

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

I'll tell my boss that, I'm sure he'll agree and tell me it's OK not to reply to a co-worker. Looking at a suspect e-mail, it's coming from User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0. Maybe you should file a bug report with the offender?

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

On 31 August 2015 at 13:10, Ken Hornstein wrote: > >I run into this at work, primarily from a co-worker running Mutt. While I > >pointed out that this is not valid and pointed to the spec, he has not > >fixed it as it does not break for anyone else. > > > >How hard would it be

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

Kevin wrote: > On 31 August 2015 at 16:55, David Levine wrote: > > > What exactly is the problem? This works for me: > > > > $ cat `mhpath +drafts 29` > > From: A. User > > Subject: test > > > > The From: contains an invalid unquoted