Search Support

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.

Learn More

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

  • 1 reply
  • 1 has this problem
  • 1 view
  • Last reply by 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 [email protected], 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 <[email protected]>

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 [email protected], 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 <[email protected]> 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?

All Replies (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.