On 18/03/2020 13:55, STINNER Victor wrote:
> STINNER Victor <vstinner@python.org> added the comment:
>
>> I may be mistaken, but I do not think the change introduced a regression.

I meant - I had never considered IPv6 in the Address column, just as I
suspect, whoever wrote the original.

Your feedback made me realize that something like "fe80::78:9a:de:f0"
would have been mistaken as a valid macaddr.

> I'm talking about this:
> https://bugs.python.org/issue39991#msg364435
>
> I don't want to blame anyone. My intent here is to get more eyes on the changes that I merged in bpo-39991 to make sure that I didn't break any existing cases, and that I covered all cases.

I will look closely at PR19045 - not because I expect to find anything
wrong, but because I thought this is what you requested.

Regards,
Michael

>
>> While it is true that this case would not have appeared if there was
> still a count of the field-separators an IPv6 address with 5 ':' and 17
> characters would have failed as well.
>
> Right, I pushed a second fix to also handle this case: commit ebf6bb9f5ef032d1646b418ebbb645ea0b217da6.
>
>
>> IMHO - while issue39991 is resolved - I am not -yet- convinced that the "root cause" has been identified and properly coded
> If you still see cases which are not handled properly with commit ebf6bb9f5ef032d1646b418ebbb645ea0b217da6, feel free to reopen bpo-39991.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <https://bugs.python.org/issue28009>
> _______________________________________
>