From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/9974 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stainless Steel Rat Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Checking `Reply-To' Date: 22 Feb 1997 21:57:04 -0500 Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035149918 21645 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:38:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:38:38 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA22690 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 19:48:18 -0800 Original-Received: from londo.asds.com (londo.prescienttech.com [199.103.216.62]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 04:27:08 +0100 Original-Received: from gkar.asds.com (gkar.asds.com [111.17.19.1]) by londo.asds.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id WAA03697 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:27:07 -0500 Original-Received: from peorth.gweep.net (gkar.asds.com [111.17.19.1]) by gkar.asds.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id WAA09476 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 22:27:05 -0500 Original-To: "(ding)" X-Attribution: Rat In-Reply-To: Hrvoje Niksic's message of 22 Feb 1997 03:47:11 +0100 Original-Lines: 29 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.15/Emacs 19.34 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9974 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9974 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> "Hrv" == Hrvoje Niksic writes: Hrv> Regardless of GNKSA, I think Gnus should perform the same checks for Hrv> `Reply-To' as it does for `From'. What do you think? I think this is a violation of RFC822, actually. It depends on just what kinds of checking Gnus performs. A common use of Reply-To (and one of the intents of RFC822) is to specify a gatewayed mailbox that will work when the conventional "user@domain" format will fail. Such addresses have potentially infinite chance to fail the tests for an Internet "user@domain" address because most are completely different, and many are technically illlegal. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBMw+yA56VRH7BJMxHAQFsVQP/eil4uzxCrsRx2UYbPr/7ZDcMrNmMv1nf 3N2aUr5kaL4ywItM9JtXwuuJhGC5dJdjbW/6Rh9dDqUh3QKMbSPQqBl75qDji0kN RR4Gbv07MYZc0SdtTAL12iuVGz8Jr3zemnCIAayEoJUi98F3qrMkjnMLjhKCzxoc iQAuIKEAzZY= =B1at -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Rat \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ returned to its special container and \ kept under refrigeration.