On 2012-10-12 at 19:45 -0700, Todd Lyons wrote:
> >> Has nobody ever used this before and noticed that email addresses
> >> still have this '>' character in front of them? Googling didn't find
> >> any for me.
> > I suspect that at some point, the "-t parse" logic must have been
> > removed/simplified away without realising the address format.
>
> Ah, good point. Maybe we can look and find said parse logic.
>
> I didn't google very well before apparently. I dug a little more and
> found something from 2008:
> http://forum.lissyara.su/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8366#p68304
> I don't read Russian, but I did see this debug output:
>
> 2540 Filter: end of processing
> 2540 system filter returned 1
> 2540 system filter added mail-copy-mailbox@???
> 2540 system filter added mail-copy-mailbox@???
> 2540 Delivery address list:
> 2540 mail-copy-mailbox@???
> 2540 mail-copy-mailbox@???
> 2540 opt1k@???
>
> It's without the '>' mark, so there's at least a possibility that the
> simple fix is to strip the leading '>' before it prints this output.
Note that in this case, all the recipients are of type email, so the
processing which looks at the first element in the list sees the > and
strips it off all of them. In the bug case, the first recipient address
is a path, so that doesn't happen.
-Phil
