From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Andreas Schwab Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: issue with mail-extract-address-components Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 21:42:04 +0100 Message-ID: <877f3qp90j.fsf@linux-m68k.org> References: <874lyunvvi.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1489610569 29646 195.159.176.226 (15 Mar 2017 20:42:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 20:42:49 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eric Abrahamsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 15 21:42:45 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1coFkp-0007Ax-Bb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 21:42:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39428 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1coFkv-0002pn-8s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:42:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35682) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1coFkL-0002pa-LO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:42:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1coFkH-0000ZA-PQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:42:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([2001:a60:0:28:0:1:25:1]:56410) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1coFkH-0000Ya-J2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:42:09 -0400 Original-Received: from frontend01.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.182]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3vk3SG2YpZz3hmlS; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 21:42:06 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from localhost (dynscan01.mnet-online.de [192.168.6.70]) by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3vk3SG1RCGz3jgYd; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 21:42:06 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mnet-online.de Original-Received: from mail.mnet-online.de ([192.168.8.182]) by localhost (dynscan01.mail.m-online.net [192.168.6.70]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2I72y5HVfOKX; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 21:42:05 +0100 (CET) X-Auth-Info: BOGLu00eBzJPBQsBcLl+Ul5vW8p21JQILyWqYIEaaTtHFelRarwFIzC1OjVr11G/ Original-Received: from igel.home (ppp-88-217-29-191.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.29.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 21:42:05 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A2A172C450A; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 21:42:04 +0100 (CET) X-Yow: It's OKAY --- I'm an INTELLECTUAL, too. In-Reply-To: <874lyunvvi.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> (Eric Abrahamsen's message of "Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:11:13 -0700") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 2001:a60:0:28:0:1:25:1 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:213057 Archived-At: On M=C3=A4r 15 2017, Eric Abrahamsen wrote: > I got an email with a malformed CC line: > > L=C3=B6rsch, Karl , "Wegner, Simon" > > Ie, no quotes around the first name. `mail-extract-address-components' > splits on the comma, as I suppose it should, and its return value is: > > (("L=C3=B6rsch" "L=C3=B6rsch") > ("Karl" "loersch@domain.cc") > ("Simon Wegner" "Wegner@domain.cc")) > > It's doing the best it can here, but I would expect ("L=C3=B6rsch" nil)= as > the first element, which would make it easier for other functions to > handle the return value correctly. Does mail-extract-address-components actually care whether the singleton is a valid address? Should it handle foo@bar different from foo? But foo could actually be a valid address in the local domain. Andreas. --=20 Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint =3D 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED= 5 "And now for something completely different."