Re: Subaddressing (RFC 5233) support in James

Enhancing MailAddress seems sensible.

I'm somewhat surprised that `+` was allowed previously (I understand that given it was valid address 
it was allowed/accepted but still :) ). I'm wondering though, what would be the upgrade path in this 
case and how to possibly handle it (and if anyone ever used it like that tbh…).

Wojtek

On 10/10/2023 11:50, Benoit TELLIER wrote:
> Yes sure. This time with the one and only MUA I should trust <3
> 
> Imo sub addressing are properties of MailAddress.
> 
> [email protected]
> [email protected]
> And [email protected]
> 
> Are all 3 distinct mail addresses diverging from their sub addresses.
> 
> We can normalize them to [email protected].
> 
> So I think the most straightforward is to add the following methods to MailAddress:
> 
> ```
> record class SubAddress(String value)
> 
> Optional<SubAddress> subAddress();
> 
> MailAddress normalize();
> ```
> 
> This should enable to implement all expected behaviours...
> 
> A first version of this parsing could be naïve and ignore comments inside email address, escape sequences, etc...
> 
> Also we may have to forbid '+' usage in user names, which should likely be documented in upgrade instructions as a breaking change.
>