Mozilla サポートの検索

Avoid support scams. We will never ask you to call or text a phone number or share personal information. Please report suspicious activity using the “Report Abuse” option.

詳しく学ぶ

このスレッドはアーカイブに保管されました。 必要であれば新たに質問してください。

Accepting an auto-complete e-mail proposal adds garbage to the To: line

  • 1 件の返信
  • 1 人がこの問題に困っています
  • 7 回表示
  • 最後の返信者: Toad-Hall

more options

When I compose a message and want to add a recipient, while typing I get a list of suggestions. While this is nice an useful, accepting one of these will add garbage to the line.

For example, if I try to send a message to John Doe with e-mail address john@doe.com, I might start by typing

john

If the correct suggestion is at the top of the list and I click it or hit enter, this will be the full contents of the To: line:

john >> John Doe <john@doe.com>

So, my own input, 'john', remains, and an additional '>>' is added in between. While the correct person will receive the mail, they will be able to see the weird name it was sent to.

Is this configurable in any way or is it just a bug?

When I compose a message and want to add a recipient, while typing I get a list of suggestions. While this is nice an useful, accepting one of these will add garbage to the line. For example, if I try to send a message to John Doe with e-mail address john@doe.com, I might start by typing john If the correct suggestion is at the top of the list and I click it or hit enter, this will be the full contents of the To: line: john >> John Doe <john@doe.com> So, my own input, 'john', remains, and an additional '>>' is added in between. While the correct person will receive the mail, they will be able to see the weird name it was sent to. Is this configurable in any way or is it just a bug?

すべての返信 (1)

more options

It is a reported bug. You would need to edit that line as it is not a valid email address with the john >> in front of the actual email address.

See bug report: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1043310

This fix should be out soon see comment 53 in response to comment 50.