[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Weird behavior with non-ascii code in headers
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Weird behavior with non-ascii code in headers |
Date: |
Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:09:34 -0400 |
>The spaces prevent it. But if there weren't any and the
>brackets were trash:
>
> To: address@hidden
Some experimenting leads me to believe that this _still_ would not be
accepted as an alias. Specifically, the @ means it gets parsed by the
address parser and has a valid 'host' part so it doesn't get processed
by the alias parser. Also, I'm trying to come up with a scenario where
this could possibly be generated by anybody ... I can easily imagine
Valdis's scenario, but this one I am having trouble with.
I'm fine with having the address parser reject addresses that contain 8-bit
characters; it doesn't seem like that's changing much, and it would happen
well before format output processing would take place. We do not do
that now.
--Ken
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Weird behavior with non-ascii code in headers, (continued)
Re: [Nmh-workers] Weird behavior with non-ascii code in headers, David Levine, 2013/06/26
Re: [Nmh-workers] Weird behavior with non-ascii code in headers, David Levine, 2013/06/26
Re: [Nmh-workers] Weird behavior with non-ascii code in headers, David Levine, 2013/06/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Weird behavior with non-ascii code in headers,
Ken Hornstein <=
Re: [Nmh-workers] Weird behavior with non-ascii code in headers, David Levine, 2013/06/27
Re: [Nmh-workers] Weird behavior with non-ascii code in headers, David Levine, 2013/06/27
Re: [Nmh-workers] Weird behavior with non-ascii code in headers, David Levine, 2013/06/27
Re: [Nmh-workers] Weird behavior with non-ascii code in headers, David Levine, 2013/06/28
Re: [Nmh-workers] Weird behavior with non-ascii code in headers, David Levine, 2013/06/29