Slavko via Exim-users wrote on 27.05.2023 14:00:
> Ahoj,
>
> Dňa Sat, 27 May 2023 13:20:48 +0300 Victor Ustugov via Exim-users
> <[email protected]> napísal:
>
>> I think that in this case it is not necessary to use a very "horrible
>> complicated" full RFC compliant regexp. It may be sufficient to ignore
>> all parenthesized text after the last ">". Or even ignore all text in
>> parentheses after the last ">".
>>
>> ${if
>> eq{${addresses:$rh_From:}}{}{${sg{$rh_From:}{\N^.*<(\S+?@\S+?)>[^>]*$\N}{\$1}}}{${addresses:$rh_From:}}}
>>
>
> And then you get something as this:
>
> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> (<[email protected]>)
>
> :-)))
In this case, everything will be fine, because the address will be
returned by ${addresses:...}
But there will be problems with such header:
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
(<[email protected]>)
> My point was, that regex can be not reliable too.
Regex is only a workaround. It is needed only because ${address:...} and
${addresses:...} cannot always extract the addresses from the headers.
> I consider the ${address:} expansion as way to prevent needing that
> anyone have to develop own parser, which can end in ugly or even wrong
> way as not all (including me) are regex experts...
> I do not expect, that ${address:} will parse any wrong syntax. I can
> accept, that it can fail in some corner cases of valid syntax. But
> i expect, that when header will pass the header_syntax check, then that
> expansion will be able to parse it, otherwise something is wrong.
--
Best wishes Victor Ustugov
mailto:[email protected]
public GnuPG/PGP key: https://victor.corvax.kiev.ua/corvax.asc
--
## subscription configuration (requires account):
## https://lists.exim.org/mailman3/postorius/lists/exim-users.lists.exim.org/
## unsubscribe (doesn't require an account):
## [email protected]
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
