Author r.david.murray
Recipients eric.araujo, r.david.murray
Date 2010-12-13.02:21:33
SpamBayes Score 7.58193e-06
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1292206897.19.0.183794412944.issue9286@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
OK, I've studied this more, and it looks to me like the legacy address format allows multiple atoms separated by white space in the local part of the address.  This means that the correct parse would be

  ('', 'merwok wok@rusty.com')

How useful this parse is is a good question.  It is arguably better than losing the white space; however, the fact that it represents a behavior change and there's no actual user bug against this argues against backport.  I do think it is better to conform to the RFC as much as possible, though, so I'd like to fix this in 3.2.

Attached is a patch to the parser that preserves whitespace runs in between unquoted atoms in the local part.

It would be interesting to know what other email programs do with such addresses.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-12-13 02:21:37r.david.murraysetrecipients: + r.david.murray, eric.araujo
2010-12-13 02:21:37r.david.murraysetmessageid: <1292206897.19.0.183794412944.issue9286@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-12-13 02:21:34r.david.murraylinkissue9286 messages
2010-12-13 02:21:33r.david.murraycreate