Re: [BUG] format-patch does not wrap From-field after author name
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Apr 14, 2011, 22:29 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20110414222940.GA19389@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <BANLkTikgZH8135=o5ODcA=780-1D7YFngw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:21:24AM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> >> True. But since the fix is as simple as it is, perhaps it's worth it > >> just for the clean conscience? > > > > Fair enough. Patch to follow. > > > > Thinking about it a bit more, I'm getting a bit more unsure: > - The 78-limit is about user-interfaces, not protocol robustness.
True. In theory we should also be limiting to avoid the 998-character hard protocol limit, but that is getting ridiculously unlikely.
> - Since send-email unwraps the line and does not re-wrap it, even if > we have a name like this it's likely that the work gets undone right > away.
Not everybody uses send-email. So you are also helping MUAs which consume the output of format-patch.
That being said, I doubt that this will make a difference to anybody. The real reason that we put wrapping into add_rfc2047 was for subjects, which _do_ get long.
> - So that means that send-email should probably also be fixed. But now > I'm wondering if we've crossed the point where this will just lead to > less obvious code for very little gain.
It is ugly code.
I'm just as happy if we drop it.
Show 7 quoted lines
> > Because it means we have to _parse_ those > > headers and understand which part is a name and which is an address. > > That part is surprisingly easy: If it contains a '<', then it's on the form > "Foo Bar Baz <foo@bar.baz>". If not, it's "foo@bar.baz" (assuming it's > UTF-8 encoded rfc5322 mailbox'es we assume, which would make the most > sense to me)
What about:
"Foo \"The Bar\" Baz" <foo@example.com>
or
Foo "The Bar" Baz <foo@example.com>
or
Foo (The Bar) Baz <foo@example.com>
I.e., are we taking rfc822-style addresses, or are we taking something that looks vaguely like an email address, and just treating everything left of "<" as literal?
-Peff