Re: Poll remove exact address code? (was: Re: Obsolete features)
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:46:24AM +0200, Alain Bench wrote:
> > * On Sat, May 20, 2006 Rocco Rutte (pdmef@xxxxxxx) muttered:
> >> as for exact address, I'm wondering if there're people out there
> >> which actually use it (as it's non-default).
>
> I know of 2 guys using +EXACT_ADDRESS, but after discussion it
> appears that it's not for any serious nor good reason. I may seem to
> guess that it's not far from the false assumption that "exact" is better
> than "not exact"... Where we see wording importance. Or a (weak)
> preference for the deprecated "address (name)" syntax. IMHO the feature
> can be safely dropped.
I used to use it because I prefer the "address (name)" syntax.
It worked for a while, even when the release notes stated that the
feature was broken. At some point, though, it stopped working, so I
(reluctantly) stopped using it.
Given mutt's general "you can do whatever you want even if we think it's
dumb" philosophy, I'd much rather see the feature fixed than taken
out... but I agree it should be one or the other, and I'm not able to
fix it myself, so....
Just out of curiosity, where in RFC(2)822 (or elswewhere) is the address
(name) syntax listed as deprecated? A comment in paranenthesis appears
to be syntactically correct, if I'm reading them right.
[ Sorry for semi-duplicate post for anyone on mutt-users and mutt-dev -
accidentally replied to both from an address not subbed to mutt-users ]
w