After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 413137 - Email field doesn't allow plus (+) addresses
Email field doesn't allow plus (+) addresses
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: bug-buddy
Classification: Deprecated
Component: general
2.17.x
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Bug-buddy Maintainers
Bug-buddy Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2007-02-28 17:27 UTC by Steve Brown
Modified: 2008-07-31 13:05 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.17/2.18

Attachments
Patch from Ben Finney (1.86 KB, patch)
2007-07-29 14:34 UTC, Josselin Mouette 		none Details | Review

Description Steve Brown 2007-02-28 17:27:40 UTC 
Please describe the problem:
Bug buddy's email address field doesn't allow addresses with a plus sign.  Many mail servers allow these "plus addresses" to tag and filter mail, and GNOME bugzilla accepts them as vaild login credentials.  Because bug-buddy won't accept my GNOME bugzilla account, I can't link to bugs with that account.

Wikipedia says that RFC2822 says + is a valid address character, take that for what it's worth.

Steps to reproduce:


Actual results:


Expected results:


Does this happen every time?


Other information:
Comment 1 Stuart Read 2007-03-27 02:50:58 UTC 
I use the + character to sort my email as well.
Comment 2 Håvard Wigtil 2007-06-05 18:04:33 UTC 
I also can't use my Bugzilla address in bug-budy because of this, so I'm setting the bug to "confirmed".
Comment 3 Josselin Mouette 2007-07-29 14:34:53 UTC 
Created attachment 92644 [details] [review]
Patch from Ben Finney

This patch from Ben Finney modifies the checks to be more in line with the 
recommendations in RFC 3696, "Application Techniques for Checking and 
Transformation of Names" section 3, "Restrictions on email addresses".

See also http://bugs.debian.org/433888
Comment 4 Cosimo Cecchi 2008-07-31 13:05:22 UTC 
It seems that a very similar patch has already been committed some time ago [1], closing as FIXED.

[1] http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/bug-buddy?view=revision&revision=2430