<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: mutt/2017: mutt_addr_is_user() "null address is assumed to be the user" (Re: your mail)



Historical footnote, in case there's any relevance:

* On 2005.08.01, in <20050801235523.GA30934@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
*       "TAKAHASHI Tamotsu" <ttakah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Anyway, this is not a serious bug at all.
> It would be OK for me if you just said "it's feature." :)

I agree it's not serious, but it's bothered me consistently for years,
so maybe it's worth something. :) I wrote a patch for 1.3.8, but IIRC
there was some forgotten side-effect with that code, and I abandoned the
approach.

A totally different workaround I considered was to add a tiny chunk of
code to parse.c:mutt_read_rfc822_header(), right before the RFC2047
parsing.

diff -ru mutt-1.3.8-dist/parse.c mutt-1.3.8/parse.c
--- mutt-1.3.8-dist/parse.c Tue Aug 22 16:26:25 2000
+++ mutt-1.3.8/parse.c  Sun Sep 10 23:38:50 2000
@@ -1288,6 +1288,9 @@

   FREE (&line);

+  if (!e->to && !e->cc)
+    e->to = rfc822_parse_adrlist(NULL, "Undisclosed-recipients:;");
+
   if (hdr)
   {
     hdr->content->hdr_offset = hdr->offset;

This would ensure that messages with no To: or Cc: ever occur, and suits
me fine for display purposes.  I was never sure how comfortable I was
with modifying the messages for write-back, though.

I posted this to mutt-dev but there was no discussion on the list at
the time, so I don't know what others thought of it.

-- 
 -D.    dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx        NSIT    University of Chicago