Package: emacs;
Reported by: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman <at> gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:40:04 UTC
Severity: normal
Done: Chong Yidong <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Message #25 received at 453 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):
From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman <at> gmx.net> To: Chong Yidong <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com> Cc: 453 <at> debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#453: 23.0.60; rfc822-bad-address: wrong-type-argument error Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:07:57 +0200
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:38:24 -0400 Chong Yidong <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com> wrote:
> Stephen Berman <stephen.berman <at> gmx.net> writes:
>
>> 1. bbdb-rfc822-addresses is trying to parse this header:
>> (""Groß, Werner"") <W.F.Gross <at> t-online.de>
>> which presumably violates RFC822.
>> 2. bbdb-rfc822-addresses calls rfc822-addresses, which turns the header
>> into this string:
>> (""Groß
>> and, after let-binding but before setq-ing rfc822-address-start,
>> 3. calls rfc822-nuke-whitespace, which further truncates the header to:
>> (
>> and then calls
>> 4. rfc822-bad-address, which tries to call narrow-to-region with
>> rfc822-address-start, which is still nil, as the beginning of the
>> region: BZZT!
>
> Now I understand. could you send a new patch? Thanks.
I was going to just resend my patch minus the inappropriate white space
changes. But upon reconsideration, I'm not confident that the patch I
sent previously DTRT. I'm not even sure what TRT is here: as I wrote in
my OP, my patch returns an error string as specified by
rfc822-bad-address, but the caller bbdb-rfc822-addresses expects a list,
so it still raises a wrong-type error. This happens when the relocated
catch sexp has scope to the end of the let that immediately encloses it
(patch (i) below). But I leave the catch in its existing position and
move rfc822-nuke-whitespace to within it (patch (ii) below), then no
error is raised, but also there's no indication of a bad address; yet
stepping through the code with edebug does pass through
rfc822-bad-address. So where should the catch be located? Hopefully
someone familiar (unlike me) with RFC 822 and rfc822.el, and ideally
also bbdb-rfc822-addresses, can answer that question and say whether
either of these patches is suitable, or provide a better one.
Steve Berman
Patch (i) (returns an error string as specified by rfc822-bad-address,
but raises a wrong-type error with bbdb-rfc822-addresses):
*** emacs/lisp/mail/rfc822.el.~1.28.~ 2008-05-06 17:54:09.000000000 +0200
--- emacs/lisp/mail/rfc822.el 2008-09-02 17:35:28.000000000 +0200
***************
*** 292,303 ****
(goto-char (point-min))
(let ((list ())
tem
! rfc822-address-start); this is for rfc822-bad-address
! (rfc822-nuke-whitespace)
! (while (not (eobp))
! (setq rfc822-address-start (point))
! (setq tem
! (catch 'address ; this is for rfc822-bad-address
(cond ((rfc822-looking-at ?\,)
nil)
((looking-at "[][\000-\037@;:\\.>)]")
--- 292,306 ----
(goto-char (point-min))
(let ((list ())
tem
! ;; This is for rfc822-bad-address. Give it a non-nil initial
! ;; value to prevent rfc822-bad-address from raising a
! ;; wrong-type-argument error
! (rfc822-address-start (point)))
! (catch 'address ; this is for rfc822-bad-address
! (rfc822-nuke-whitespace)
! (while (not (eobp))
! (setq rfc822-address-start (point))
! (setq tem
(cond ((rfc822-looking-at ?\,)
nil)
((looking-at "[][\000-\037@;:\\.>)]")
***************
*** 306,318 ****
(format "Strange character \\%c found"
(preceding-char))))
(t
! (rfc822-addresses-1 t)))))
! (cond ((null tem))
! ((stringp tem)
! (setq list (cons tem list)))
! (t
! (setq list (nconc (nreverse tem) list)))))
! (nreverse list)))
(and buf (kill-buffer buf))))))
(provide 'rfc822)
--- 309,321 ----
(format "Strange character \\%c found"
(preceding-char))))
(t
! (rfc822-addresses-1 t))))
! (cond ((null tem))
! ((stringp tem)
! (setq list (cons tem list)))
! (t
! (setq list (nconc (nreverse tem) list)))))
! (nreverse list))))
(and buf (kill-buffer buf))))))
(provide 'rfc822)
Patch (ii) (bbdb-rfc822-addresses raises no error, but also there's no
indication of a bad address; yet stepping through the code with edebug
does pass through rfc822-bad-address):
*** emacs/lisp/mail/rfc822.el.~1.28.~ 2008-05-06 17:54:09.000000000 +0200
--- emacs/lisp/mail/rfc822.el 2008-09-02 18:01:49.000000000 +0200
***************
*** 293,312 ****
(let ((list ())
tem
rfc822-address-start); this is for rfc822-bad-address
- (rfc822-nuke-whitespace)
(while (not (eobp))
(setq rfc822-address-start (point))
(setq tem
(catch 'address ; this is for rfc822-bad-address
! (cond ((rfc822-looking-at ?\,)
! nil)
! ((looking-at "[][\000-\037@;:\\.>)]")
! (forward-char)
! (rfc822-bad-address
! (format "Strange character \\%c found"
! (preceding-char))))
! (t
! (rfc822-addresses-1 t)))))
(cond ((null tem))
((stringp tem)
(setq list (cons tem list)))
--- 293,313 ----
(let ((list ())
tem
rfc822-address-start); this is for rfc822-bad-address
(while (not (eobp))
(setq rfc822-address-start (point))
(setq tem
(catch 'address ; this is for rfc822-bad-address
! (progn
! (rfc822-nuke-whitespace)
! (cond ((rfc822-looking-at ?\,)
! nil)
! ((looking-at "[][\000-\037@;:\\.>)]")
! (forward-char)
! (rfc822-bad-address
! (format "Strange character \\%c found"
! (preceding-char))))
! (t
! (rfc822-addresses-1 t))))))
(cond ((null tem))
((stringp tem)
(setq list (cons tem list)))
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.