Subject: Re: Is envelope missing :comparator arguement?

From: Gregory Sereda <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:21:35 -0500

At 05:02 PM 2/22/99 -0500, Tim Showalter wrote:
>I don't see a good reason that COMPARATOR can't apply to the whole
>address, it's just useless on the right-side.  Right?

If we canonicalize the domain-part to (say) lower case, then we have
effectively defined the domain-part comparator as "i:ascii-casemap".
That is why I say the COMPARATOR applies only to the localpart.
I thought I was saying the same thing you were saying.

Actually, I like stating that domain part of address will always 
use the comparator "i;ascii-casemap".  Because if you only
canonoicalize the message (and not the script), the following
will always be false:

	if address :is :all "from" "[email-masked]" {
		discard;
	}

If you canonicalize both the message and script domain parts to
lowercase, you are doing an "i;ascii-casemap" compare regardless
of what COMPARATOR you have specified.  Right?

Greg Sereda 

>
>-- 
>Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
>
>

---

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Feb 1999 14:00:57 -0500

> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:21:35 -0500
> From: Gregory Sereda <[email-masked]>
> 

I'm not sure about this.  I'm pretty sure I'm missing something.  I
don't think the two things are identical in any case.

> of what COMPARATOR you have specified.  Right?

The problem is that in a script like

	if address :all :contains "from" "andrew"

both [email-masked] and [email-masked] match.

I think that at this point I agree with you; comaprator for address and
header works against only the local-part and not the domain-part, and
i;ascii-casemap just happens to be the default (I don't want to make
this a special case, and I doubt that anyone else does, either).  I
don't think it's that much harder to write, but I could be wrong.

If we do this, everything I said about canonicalizing the domain-part to 
(say) lower-case is useless.

Tim