[tin-bugs] Tin incorrectly parses comment blocks in CFWS blocks (per RFC5322 3.2.2)

[Nicholas Boel]

On 11/10/2024 11:42 PM, Urs Janßen wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 11:04:54PM -0600, Nicholas Boel wrote:
>
> Which version of tin are you reffering to? Please use the build-in
> BugReport ('R') funtion/key to report bugs as stated in the manual and
> README. The current snapshot (will be next stable release in about 6
> weeks) has some modifications in parser in that directions ...

Ah, I didn't know about the built in bug report function. I just went 
with how you got ahold of me the last time I requested a feature. Thank 
you for letting me know and I will do this in the future, if needed.

I'm using what I believe is the latest snapshot from:

ftp://ftp.tin.org/pub/news/clients/tin/v2.6/snapshots/tin-2.6.4.tar.gz

> From: "Some Body" (Cool Guy)<somebody at example.com>
> That From is illegal, unquoted words may not contain '!()<>@,;:\.[]' in
> route addresses. tin wouldn't allow you to post with that and will render
> it (to fix the mentiond issue) as:
>
> 	From: "\"Some Body\" (Cool Guy)"<somebody at example.com>

Here is pertinent line from the server:

"From: \"%s\" (%s) <%s>"

and here is what tin is outputting in the header:

From: "\"Some Body\" (Cool Guy)" <somebody at example.com>

However, slrn (Linux) outputs this:

From: "Some Body" (Cool Guy) <somebody at example.com>

and Thunderbird (Windows) outputs this:

Some Body (Cool Guy) <somebody at example.com>

It was confusing to me that 3 different newsreaders are parsing it 
differently each time. However, tin seems to be the farthest off from 
what is expected.

If this is correct behavior for tin, do you have any ideas as to why it 
is being displayed differently in all three newsreaders, or able to 
provide a better example of how this should work?

-- 
Nick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tin.org/pipermail/tin-bugs/attachments/20241111/9e778a82/attachment.htm>