gpk [gpk]

Note that I've actually been working to implement a backport of #58224: Allow anonymous users access to a members personal contact form integrated into #310895: Port Anonymous Contact to Drupal 6 that should work nicely. I don't see a need for a second anonymous contact project when it should work with just one.

Considering the complexity of this module, I would think that one module is enough.
As Dave is already planning, or back-porting the code from Drupal 7, I would reject this application request.

@gpk No problem. I was planning on merging the existing functionality of contact_anon with my backport of the D7 patch. That way if people are searching for how 'anonymous' users can use the 'contact' forms, or if people are searching for a way to make the 'contact' forms 'anonymous', they'll find the same module which helps out both cases.

I'm looking for this functionality (described by gpk) and I would not want to have it combined with the Anonymous Contact module as the need is entirely separate (related by terminology only) and I do not require the features of the Anonymous Contact module.

I support gpk's rationale (high cohesion/low coupling of functions) for providing a separate module to allow anonymous users to access personal contact forms.

1.     $title = filter_xss(theme('username', $recipient), array());
       drupal_set_title("Contact $title");
       $output = drupal_get_form('personal_contact_permission_mail_user', $recipient);
   

   theme_username() already calls check_plain(); there is no need to call filter_xss() too.

2.     drupal_set_title("Contact $title");
   

   The string should be translatable.

It is normally not a good idea to filter a string twice.

    $title = strip_tags(theme('username', $recipient));
    drupal_set_title(t('Contact !title', array('!title' => $title)));

That code makes more sense, IMO.
Between the two things I reported, the translatable string is the most important one. I will not surely block the approval of your CVS for the other part; I was just pointing out that (sometimes) passing a string to two different filter functions (or to the same filter function twice) can cause some unwanted effect (& shown as &, in example).

      $message['body'][] = strip_tags(theme('username', $recipient)) . ',';
      $message['body'][] = t("!name (!name-info) has sent you a message via your contact form (!form-url) at !site.", array('!name' => $sender->name, '!name-info' => $sender->uid ? url("user/$sender->uid", array('absolute' => TRUE, 'language' => $language)) : $sender->mail, '!form-url' => url($_GET['q'], array('absolute' => TRUE, 'language' => $language)), '!site' => variable_get('site_name', 'Drupal')), $language->language);
      $message['body'][] = t("If you don't want to receive such e-mails, you can change your settings at !url.", array('!url' => url("user/$recipient->uid", array('absolute' => TRUE, 'language' => $language))), $language->language);
      $message['body'][] = t('Message:', NULL, $language->language);
      $message['body'][] = $params['message'];

The placeholder used for the URLs is normally the character @ (the same you have already used in other code lines).

I'm still planning up updating contact_anon with both features because it makes more sense to me since they would share code. Don't want the actual anonymized contact forms? Don't enable the "use node contact forms" permission. Want anonymous users to be able to use the personal contact forms? Enable the "user personal contact forms" permission. I don't see why we need a sep module for this, but I've put my argument out there and won't say anything else.

@Dave: I interpreted your @gpk No problem. as a way to say that it was fine for you to have this module in CVS, or that you changed your mind about the module you were planning to do.

I have already not accepted CVS applications when the user was proposing a module that was a duplicate of an already existing module; even in the case I accepted a module that apparently was a duplicate of an existing module (I mean it seemed a duplicate from the short description given from the user), I first asked in what the module would differ from the already existing one.
It is also true that I keep in mind what Dries said about duplicate modules.