Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

[Ken Hornstein]

>That's legal - nothing in the RFCs says what you have to do with bogus
>address when they're received, but not as friendly as perhaps we'd prefer -
>if the previous case can get quoted, then this one perhaps could as well.

Respectfully ... I disagree with that statement.  RFC 5322, §4, says:

   Earlier versions of this specification allowed for different (usually
   more liberal) syntax than is allowed in this version.  Also, there
   have been syntactic elements used in messages on the Internet whose
   interpretations have never been documented.  Though these syntactic
   forms MUST NOT be generated according to the grammar in section 3,
   they MUST be accepted and parsed by a conformant receiver.

We reject those addresses in the nmh address parser as invalid (what
you're seeing in repl is really just the result of failed address
parsing, but that can occur in other situations).  Addresses with
unquoted '.' are valid in the RFC 5322 grammar as an obs-phrase, so they
are not bogus under the letter of the rules.  Bottom line, we get this
wrong.

--Ken