Rasmus Villemoes <rv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I considered that (and also had a version where I simply insisted on a @ > being present), but that means the user no longer would get prompted > about the cases where the address was just slightly obfuscated, e.g. the > > Cc: John Doe <john at doe.com> > > cases, which would be a regression, I guess. So I do want to pass such > cases through, and have them be dealt with when process_address_list > gets called. We are only tightening with this patch, and we were passing any random things through with the original code anyway, so without [PATCH 3/3], this step must be making it only better, but I have to wonder one thing. You keep saying "get prompted" but are we sure we always stop and ask (and preferrably---fail and abort when the end user is not available at the terminal to interact) when we have such a questionable address?
