Re: [BUG] format-patch does not wrap From-field after author name

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:21:24AM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:

> >> True. But since the fix is as simple as it is, perhaps it's worth it
> >> just for the clean conscience?
> >
> > Fair enough. Patch to follow.
> >
> 
> Thinking about it a bit more, I'm getting a bit more unsure:
> - The 78-limit is about user-interfaces, not protocol robustness.

True. In theory we should also be limiting to avoid the 998-character
hard protocol limit, but that is getting ridiculously unlikely.

> - Since send-email unwraps the line and does not re-wrap it, even if
> we have a name like this it's likely that the work gets undone right
> away.

Not everybody uses send-email. So you are also helping MUAs which
consume the output of format-patch.

That being said, I doubt that this will make a difference to anybody.
The real reason that we put wrapping into add_rfc2047 was for subjects,
which _do_ get long.

> - So that means that send-email should probably also be fixed. But now
> I'm wondering if we've crossed the point where this will just lead to
> less obvious code for very little gain.

It is ugly code.

I'm just as happy if we drop it.

> > Because it means we have to _parse_ those
> > headers and understand which part is a name and which is an address.
> 
> That part is surprisingly easy: If it contains a '<', then it's on the form
> "Foo Bar Baz <foo@bar.baz>". If not, it's "foo@bar.baz" (assuming it's
> UTF-8 encoded rfc5322 mailbox'es we assume, which would make the most
> sense to me)

What about:

  "Foo \"The Bar\" Baz" <foo@example.com>

or

  Foo "The Bar" Baz <foo@example.com>

or

  Foo (The Bar) Baz <foo@example.com>

I.e., are we taking rfc822-style addresses, or are we taking something
that looks vaguely like an email address, and just treating everything
left of "<" as literal?

-Peff