[imp] Incorrect To: headers when adding recipients from address book in compose window

[Liz Rea]

Still thrashing about this problem with a user sending to multiple  
recipients and getting "undisclosed recipient" in the sent-items and  
the message is not sent.

Here is what I've found. After selecting multiple recipients  
individually from the compose message addressbook screen, this is  
what appears in the To: header:

"person1" <email at email.net, "person2" <email at email2.com, "person3"  
<email at email3.lib.ks.us, "company1" <commercial.company at email4.com>


Are you noticing what I'm noticing? There is a missing > after the  
first email address, the second email address, and the third email  
address. The only one that has a finishing > is the last address.

The format should be:
"person1" <email at email.net>, "person2" <email at email2.com>, "person3"  
<email at email3.lib.ks.us>, "company1" <commercial.company at email4.com>

This happens to several users on the system, but I cannot seem to  
replicate the issue on my own account. I have logged in as the  
problematic users and have replicated the problem easily. The  
addressbook formatting seems to be identical in my addressbook as it  
is in theirs (no strange characters in the addressbook entries that I  
can reasonably ascertain).

The horde log shows the following:

Feb 10 12:28:00 HORDE [info] [imp] 198.248.xx.xx Message sent to  
"person1" <email at email.net, "person2" <email at email2.com, "person3"  
<email at email3.lib.ks.us, "company1" <commercial.company at email4.com>  
from MyUser [on line 949 of "/var/www/htdocs/horde/imp/compose.php"]

This does not look abnormal to me as far as a sent message entry  
goes. It does reflect the missing closing triangle brackets as noted  
from the compose window outlined above. The message comes to the mail  
administrator (me) with nothing in the To: field. This is expected  
behavior for messages that have no recipients sent from postfix.

Could this be a fault with the addressbook for this particular user?  
An artifact of a manual edit of the addressbook? I don't have an  
explanation and the affected users (it's not ALL of them!) are  
frustrated, as am I.

Can anyone explain this behavior to me? At the very least there needs  
to be an error check for this condition.

Liz Rea
Northeast Kansas Library System