"JRA" == Jay R Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> writes:
JRA> Mutt's highlighting regexes are pretty decent, but I don't
JRA> know that *any* RE can match both quoted and non-quoted
JRA> mailbox names reliably.You have to invoke the 80/20 rule or you'll either go insane, or duplicate mail-extr.el's syntax driven state machine in your programming language of choice.
JRA> There's an argument going on somewhere else right now -- I
JRA> thought it was bugtraq, but I seem to have misplaced the
JRA> message -- about whether email addresses can have an RHS that
JRA> terminates in a .
JRA> The poster says no way, I say that 2821 and 1034/5 say yes.I'm not sure. 2822 would be the definitive RFC wouldn't it?
-------------------- snip snip -------------------- addr-spec = local-part "@" domain local-part = dot-atom / quoted-string / obs-local-part dot-atom = [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS] dot-atom-text = 1*atext *("." 1*atext) atext = ALPHA / DIGIT / ; Any character except controls, "!" / "#" / ; SP, and specials. "$" / "%" / ; Used for atoms "&" / "'" / "*" / "+" / "-" / "/" / "=" / "?" / "^" / "_" / "`" / "{" / "|" / "}" / obs-local-part = word *("." word) word = atom / quoted-string atom = [CFWS] 1*atext [CFWS] -------------------- snip snip --------------------
It would seem that the local-part can't end in a `.'.
JRA> Someone has to fix the problem. It has been proven to my
JRA> satisfaction that the technologists can't: it's not a
JRA> technology-fix problem (so few 'problems' are). Someone has
JRA> to get *pissed*.In a different context, the same question: do you think the corporate fraud reforms now being debated in congress will solve the problem? People /are/ pissed and are demanding both technological and non-technological fixes. But maybe it's just 3am and I'm starting to hallucinate. ;)
I can't give any definite examples to protect the people involved, but I know of a couple of people who've had their careers significantly impacted because of this stuff. Maybe not fatal, but third degree burns.
JRA> The topic being false-positive-ly blocked "spam", aren't
JRA> those evidence for the prosecution, not the defense?False positives don't scare me, but that's because we've got at least 5 volunteer postmasters screening the reports and rescuing probably 1 message a week, if that. What happens when the true-positives start making a stink because they demand that their spam get through?
JRA> Letting spam through likely only gets you yelled at;
JRA> accidentally blocking important stuff gets you burned.
JRA> We are on the critical path, folks. I know you know that,
JRA> but the explicit reminder isn't going to get me fired.
JRA> Fail-safe isn't just for aerospace anymore.In a way I agree, but by the same token, email is such a flakey system throughout that I think people have fairly low expectations that a message they send will get delivered, read, and answered. If you positively must get an answer to a question and in a hurry, email's a lousy way to ensure that.
-Barry