Re: Re: Improving mail() 5th parameter handling

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote: > Hi Nikita and all, > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Without this option, how do you specify the envelope sender? That seems > to > > be the primary use-case. > > > Indeed, it seems it is. > It could be set by mail.force_extra_parameters. I agree this isn't a great > way to do, but the obstacle may help users to notice risks. > > Parameters must be validated still, but it will help in most cases and I > don't mind writing patch for arrayed 'addtional_parameter'. In this case, > I'll just fix this as normal bug fix and post proposed patch before commit. > Any comments on this? > Removing the 5th parameter would be a serious mistake and limitation IMO. Moving the additional_headers and additional_parameters to be an array of parameters would resolve most of the main issues I see here but forcing an INI setting here would be a mistake, huge BC break and overall not something you could fix as a "bug fix" in this case in particular. > > Regards, > > -- > Yasuo Ohgaki > yohgaki@ohgaki.net >