Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 14 2011, Tommy Kelly wrote:
>
>> jidanni@jidanni.org writes:
>>
>>> Address `questions‌@panoramio.com' might be bogus.  Continue? (y or n)  y
>>>
>>> Better have the message say why: Silly user name? Invisible character in
>>> the address? Etc.
>
> The check includes several expressions that are potentially invalid or
> bogus addresses:
>
> ,----[ M-x customize-variable RET message-bogus-addresses RET ]
> | message-bogus-addresses: Hide Value Value Menu List:
> | Set:
> | [X] noreply
> | [X] nospam
> | [X] invalid
> | [X] duplicate @
> | [X] non-ascii local part
> | [X] whitespace
> | Other:
> | INS
> |    State: STANDARD.
> | 
> | List of regexps of potentially bogus mail addresses. Hide Rest
> | See `message-check-recipients' how to setup checking.
> | 
> | This list should make it possible to catch typos or warn about
> | spam-trap addresses.  It doesn't aim to verify strict RFC
> | conformance.
> `----
>
>> I agree. I just (for the first time) saw the same message and had no
>> idea what it was telling me.
>
> Feel free to suggest a better wording.
>
> Bye, Reiner.

Couldn't you allow message-bogus-addresses to have (cons "string" "msg")
as possible entries. Then message-bogus-recipient-p could return "msg"
(if there is one) or T otherwise. Then message-check-recipients could
add "msg" to the format call.

Rupert