Bug 59830

Summary: importing addresses from pine
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Raw Hide Reporter: Tim Waugh <twaugh>
Component: evolutionAssignee: Dave Malcolm <dmalcolm>
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 1.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-09-23 21:31:53 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Try this entry. none

Description Tim Waugh 2002-02-13 18:54:15 UTC 
Description of Problem:
The import agent for getting addresses from a Pine address book sometimes
creates entries like:

Full name: First Last
Primary Email: "first last" <first.last>

When sending email to that contact, it is formed like this:

First Last <"First Last" <first.last> >

which obviously isn't what we want. :-)

The 'primary email' field should just be first.last in this instance.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
1.0.2-1
Comment 1 Jeremy Katz 2002-02-13 19:26:53 UTC 
If this only happens sometimes, do you have some pine addressbook entries that
exhibit it so I can beat on it a little?
Comment 2 Tim Waugh 2002-02-15 11:27:43 UTC 
Created attachment 45785 [details]
Try this entry.
Comment 3 Jeremy Katz 2003-07-28 22:53:10 UTC 
Is this better in newer versions?
Comment 4 Tim Waugh 2003-07-29 08:00:28 UTC 
I'm afraid I have no idea.
Comment 5 Dave Malcolm 2004-09-20 23:10:05 UTC 
Sorry this bug has gone for so long without activity.

Relevant code appears to be in
evolution/mail/importers/pine-importer.c; it loads the file ~/.addressbook

I had a go at stepping through the import in the evolution-2.0.0 code;
currently it entirely fails to parse your attachment, leading to no
contacts being created.

Do you have any more test data I can run on this?  Do you still care
about this bug?
Comment 6 Tim Waugh 2004-09-23 10:51:15 UTC 
Sorry, no to both questions.
Comment 7 Dave Malcolm 2004-09-23 21:31:53 UTC 
Resolving as DEFERRED since I've got plenty of higher-priority bugs to
work on :-(