Re: sender name on followup is not extracted properly for certain

Re: sender name on followup is not extracted properly for certain

[Kai Großjohann]

<vvv@vsu.ru> (Vladimir Volovich) writes:

> It seems that (sc-mail-field "sc-attribution") and (sc-mail-field
> "sc-author") do not work as expected for the From: syntax shown above.

Technically speaking the from header you're showing is syntactically
incorrect, since the grammar requires a nonempty word before or after
the <...> part (I forget whether it was before, or after, or
either).  And comments are not considered nonempty words, IIUC.

However, it's no excuse for SC failing, of course.  How about you fix
it and submit a patch to the Emacs and/or XEmacs maintainers?
-- 
This line is not blank.

Re: sender name on followup is not extracted properly for certain

[Vladimir Volovich]

"KG" == Kai Großjohann writes:

 >> It seems that (sc-mail-field "sc-attribution") and (sc-mail-field
 >> "sc-author") do not work as expected for the From: syntax shown
 >> above.

 KG> Technically speaking the from header you're showing is
 KG> syntactically incorrect, since the grammar requires a nonempty
 KG> word before or after the <...> part (I forget whether it was
 KG> before, or after, or either).  And comments are not considered
 KG> nonempty words, IIUC.

as far as i know, the latest RFCs allow such syntax. do you have some
specific references on the invalidness of such header?

 KG> However, it's no excuse for SC failing, of course.  How about you
 KG> fix it and submit a patch to the Emacs and/or XEmacs maintainers?

well, this is of course always an option :) provided one has enough
time to hack :) if nobody solved it, perhaps i'll have to look at that...

Best,
v.

Re: sender name on followup is not extracted properly for certain

[Kai Großjohann]

Vladimir Volovich <vvv@vsu.ru> writes:

> "KG" == Kai Großjohann writes:
>
>  >> It seems that (sc-mail-field "sc-attribution") and (sc-mail-field
>  >> "sc-author") do not work as expected for the From: syntax shown
>  >> above.
>
>  KG> Technically speaking the from header you're showing is
>  KG> syntactically incorrect, since the grammar requires a nonempty
>  KG> word before or after the <...> part (I forget whether it was
>  KG> before, or after, or either).  And comments are not considered
>  KG> nonempty words, IIUC.
>
> as far as i know, the latest RFCs allow such syntax. do you have some
> specific references on the invalidness of such header?

I read RFC 822 once and found it in the BNF.  But I confess that I
forgot that there is RFC 2822 these days and I have no idea what it
says.

Sorry.
-- 
This line is not blank.