Re: [Evolution-hackers] mail address validation

On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 13:22 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> That won't actually work (at least not very well). The Camel address
> decoding functions assume their input is supposed to be valid and so
> it
> will do whatever it has to do to make it work. It would have to be
> extremely broken for it to fail.
Is this behaviour the desired one by design, or it is just broken?

> What you'll probably have to do is write similar functionality that is
> much more strict in what it accepts.
In the first version of the patch
( ) I've
provided a routine built on regular expressions (regcomp() and
regexec()). Opinions about that?

Roberto -MadBob- Guido

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]