Re: using the same field to be set in the update query and in the where clause
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex_at_attglobal.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 17:20:52 -0500
Message-ID: <oa1t2o$rli$1_at_jstuckle.eternal-september.org>
>
> There is some code which does handle (or 'take care') of this
> preparation ...
>
>
> i dont see anything wrong with it, because rfc5536 says:
> "The originator fields of a message consist of the from field, the
> sender field (when applicable), and optionally the reply-to field.
> The from field consists of the field name "From" and a comma-
> separated list of one or more mailbox specifications."
>
> and what i use is a perfectly valid mailbox specification.
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 17:20:52 -0500
Message-ID: <oa1t2o$rli$1_at_jstuckle.eternal-september.org>
On 3/11/2017 1:38 PM, Luuk wrote:
> On 11-03-17 18:58, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Luuk wrote: >> >>> Find a good place to post this code, which i obviously wrong, because >>> your 1st and 4th parameter seem to get the same value. >> >> Unlikely. It is a *prepared statement*.
>
> There is some code which does handle (or 'take care') of this
> preparation ...
>
>> >> Your From header is borked, see RFC 5536. >>
>
> i dont see anything wrong with it, because rfc5536 says:
> "The originator fields of a message consist of the from field, the
> sender field (when applicable), and optionally the reply-to field.
> The from field consists of the field name "From" and a comma-
> separated list of one or more mailbox specifications."
>
> and what i use is a perfectly valid mailbox specification.
Don't worry about the trolls Pointed Head and The Natural Pillosopher. They think everyone on the internet needs to conform to their standards.
-- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex_at_attglobal.net ==================Received on Sat Mar 11 2017 - 23:20:52 CET