From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253C820136 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:18:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934386AbdBQSSt (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:18:49 -0500 Received: from mail-pg0-f67.google.com ([74.125.83.67]:36473 "EHLO mail-pg0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934053AbdBQSSt (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:18:49 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-f67.google.com with SMTP id a123so2732042pgc.3 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:18:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=e9SI8KL9VlX2Hxu+A82kiKOvpfIBdw9x8FaJZ72h9HU=; b=KGUixZH6bgqg0imdxT/DHUd+Pwky6uY/R2RJ3jiDSKoovU7vFeB8lP/sAxk3nfH1nQ UgScDwkveMnUZc9UOTnB7iWOWuk2X0vx441iY6dTRNDyGF7WSTowdsul2kk7/QcGhHUt /gDraR3439vpzZBMj9PeKc6snkdRPl/YPzd8ter3TticBT4iRprwBORp1a9dWxWn4Xfw HqPzlnfUsIZ0CrIa8d+Ke2jxj9k5ZW4/mgtpWFiYj4gihwo1DA8k6C8x/ybh+9fa0tKB s7Y2bKmlNuxPqhDsYVRMhAlFLWQzYs/0rr2vJAp8oBvgjTwkaQYGPdaugk4ZYS9bw4F+ 602g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=e9SI8KL9VlX2Hxu+A82kiKOvpfIBdw9x8FaJZ72h9HU=; b=CK0w65+4+ve4LEaA1ndc7ZKGRMyWQSw1Elimb0B13IJAz0O+hhoXj9EWRle3+PZJeI x18A+38tDnEzK24DYdae2YmnNpw2R6GUWItuX/Lnp6CE85cfRkLZIv5bbNsPIaPHT0X/ BhLS43Z59Wt5ePi4le7meLCa8uaahrnJu3JZYWNDZ7sODz6Sgr+VWf3BLbtInohw3PHu FF7t8JyhdKvp1OpP9NximVjrBkUecXjEcela6PpOvrUOFWBHNuWfqCkPQph+53aEeq2N D84IJeBua2bN0s2CjkFyueplDPFFqD3ra6lF7sM7CL24o+l2Lkx7Sx4SAELbpRazH7sv lhSQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mSOEvERAAXMb364qssh4XF1zRwRfT6Zeh6Hmc9Kt65rADKy2z7CYbLT3j/qGWAKg== X-Received: by 10.84.136.7 with SMTP id 7mr13246569plk.100.1487355528276; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:18:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2620:0:1000:8622:3130:38b1:b121:8f0d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 67sm20823316pfd.120.2017.02.17.10.18.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:18:47 -0800 (PST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Matthieu Moy Cc: Johan Hovold , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , Kevin Daudt , Larry Finger Subject: Re: body-CC-comment regression References: <20170216174924.GB2625@localhost> <20170217110642.GD2625@localhost> <20170217164241.GE2625@localhost> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:18:46 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Matthieu Moy's message of "Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:58:11 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Matthieu Moy writes: >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:16:42PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote: > ... > If I had a time machine, I'd probably go back then and forbid multiple > addresses there, but ... > >> There does not seem to be single commit in the kernel where multiple >> address are specified in a CC tag since after git-send-email started >> allowing it, but there are ten commits before (to my surprise), and that >> should be contrasted with at least 4178 commits with trailing comments >> including a # sign. > > Hey, there's a life outside the kernel ;-). > ... >>> 1) Stop calling Mail::Address even if available.[...] >> >> Right, that sounds like the right thing to do regardless. >> >>> 2) Modify our in-house parser to discard garbage after the >. [...] >> >> Sounds perfectly fine to me, and seems to work too after quick test. > > OK, sounds like the way to go. > > Do you want to work on a patch? If not, I should be able to do that > myself. The code changes are straightforward, but we probably want a > proper test for that. The true headers and the things at the bottom seem to be handled in a separate loop in send-email, so treating Cc: found in the former and in the latter differently should be doable. I think it is OK to explicitly treat the latter as "these are not e-mail addresses, but just a single e-mail address possibly with non-address cruft", without losing the ability to have more than one addresses on a single CC: e-mail header.