Created attachment 557280 [details] Error shown when trying to send User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:220.127.116.11) Gecko/20110803 Firefox/3.6.20 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C) Build ID: 20110803131630 Steps to reproduce: Using address book, create a new mailing list with the name "foo"bar" (remove surrounding quotes). The name is not rejected as bad and the list is saved. Actual results: Now create a new message and for the recipient enter "foo" (remove surrounding quotes). TB offers an auto-complete of "foo\"bar" (including the surrounding quotes). Accept this auto-complete. Now try to send the message. You get an error shown in the attached screen print file saying this is not a valid email format. Expected results: In my opinion, the mailing list name should have been edit checked and rejected as invalid rather than saved. But if it is to be accepted at all, it should work when it comes time to send using it.
Are you really still using Thunderbird 2.0.x ?
Indeed. I still see no compelling reason to move. However, I do have testbeds with 3.x, 5.x, 6.x and soon 7.x for testing my addons. And I can tell you that this behavior remains.
Version 7.0 User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110925 Thunderbird/7.0 Application Build ID 20110925021328 I see a different result for version 7.0 . Created a list: foo"bar with two e-mail addresses. Composed a new e-mail and typed in: foo in the TO-field - the auto-complete action suggested: "foo\"bar" <"foo\"bar"> - accepted that. Sending the e-mail without error messages. Received the e-mail at both addresses correctly.
Thanks all. As I stated earlier today, I have no TB 7 testbed (soon perhaps). I just tested this again on TB 6 and attempts to send fail with bad email format.
still fails on 31.6.0... "my\"list1" <"my\"list1"> is not a valid e-mail address because it is not of the form user@host. You must correct it before sending the e-mail. ...but wfm on trunk 40.0a1 (2015-04-15) So it looks as if this was fixed by something. This needs a test case.
(In reply to Thomas D. from comment #5) > So it looks as if this was fixed by something. > This needs a test case. I filed bug 1156245 for the testcase.