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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham 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 591832036D for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 01:34:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751471AbdKVBeb (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:34:31 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:54865 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751409AbdKVBea (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:34:30 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0C1B9E0D; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:34:29 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=yK3dJdLuPCjMCZ5n74/qTzC8gHs=; b=rsTaA6 exmmVVhFfqAKhK+fJa8rNylj9n81ue5cYiAwszx87DmTcUEtzKcPHpdWkKtBQnKt CHiOIOxFzFkNLGDqCU15w748vnAeTAaQwKmz7HsfFqo7ucDPgg4YBluthb5k0G6m 6wzbSa2zEF+5uKXlbGeIusfT23pewHjnuh6CY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=RUB3coFy74A+sz+hSkNrsuEhEtqIjud9 mzR/8qF7X4t3p8yGN3Hvc/zjpld0C+nUGmndkfWDSq6vvuP37uAPGLBo7E9wVsq8 zzqB0Z53uqOipFzL38oXSm/mNRfPV+WNffrrJQRID67gYGpXbgpHdFRwnZenD7or 71NsEc/7/sQ= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18A5B9E0C; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:34:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D150B9E0B; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:34:29 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Thomas Adam Cc: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= , Eric Sunshine , Git List , Matthieu Moy , Remi Lespinet Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-send-email: fix get_maintainer.pl regression References: <20171116154814.23785-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <87wp2jwe9o.fsf@linaro.org> <20171121205206.fvwjkkwhil4abmmk@laptop> Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:34:27 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20171121205206.fvwjkkwhil4abmmk@laptop> (Thomas Adam's message of "Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:52:08 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4859FC92-CF25-11E7-A85E-575F0C78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Thomas Adam writes: > Trying to come up with a reinvention of regexps for email addresses is asking > for trouble, not to mention a crappy rod for your own back. Don't do that. > This is why people use Mail::Address. > > https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/MailTools/lib/Mail/Address.pod Now we are coming back to cc907506 ("send-email: don't use Mail::Address, even if available", 2017-08-23). It argues * Having this optional Mail::Address makes it tempting to anwser "please install Mail::Address" to users instead of fixing our own code. We've reached the stage where bugs in our parser should be fixed, not worked around. but if it costs us maintaining our substitute that much, it seems to me that depending on Mail::Address is not just tempting but may be a sensible way forward. Was there any reason why Mail::Address was _inadequate_? I know we had trouble with random garbage that are *not* addresses people put on the in-body CC: trailer in the past, but I do not recall if they are something Mail::Address would give worse result and we need our workaround (hence our own substitute), or Mail::Address would handle them just fine.