[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