[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address

From: Jeffrey Honig
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 22:46:09 -0400

Well said Robert.

On Sep 2, 2015 22:40, "Robert Elz" <address@hidden> wrote:
    Date:        Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:10:41 -0400
    From:        Ken Hornstein <address@hidden>
    Message-ID:  <address@hidden>

  | but any MUA that doesn't interpret it is ALSO not RFC-compliant.

I just ran a couple of tests, and couldn't find anything non-compliant about
nmh - perhaps not as user friendly as we may like, but definitely compliant.

As best I can see, nmh doesn't object to receiving, nor does it refuse to
display, messages with those "obs-phrase" type dots in them.   That is,
it interprets those messages just fine.

What it does do (and what sparked the original query/complaint) was to
refuse to send to an address that isn't properly conformant.   That's
also perfectly OK.

That's where the possible lack of user friendliness comes in - for an
address like your (invented)
        Dr. Ken Hornstein <address@hidden>
"repl" would produce
        To: "Dr. Ken Hornstein" <address@hidden>

which is compliant, and meets typical user expectations.

On the other hand, if your From: field contained
        Ken.Hornstein <address@hidden>
then repl generates the "repl: bad addresses: ..." stuff, as reported,
and doesn't fill in the To field at all.

That's legal - nothing in the RFCs says what you have to do with bogus
address when they're received, but not as friendly as perhaps we'd prefer -
if the previous case can get quoted, then this one perhaps could as well.

What we mustn't ever do though is
        To: Ken.Hornstein <address@hidden>


Nmh-workers mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]