On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 14:34:05 EST, wrote:
> David Stern wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why a correct header would be rejected. I'd like to
> > see some details for the basis to this claim, because I use the same
> > address style as you and Daniel. Please tell.
>
>
> This is from /var/spool/smail/msglog/... I broke it into multiple lines
>
> Xdefer: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> reason: (ERR151) transport smtp: 451
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Domain must resolve.
> It is a criminal offense to send unsolicited e-mail to,from,or
> through this server.
>
> The mail seems to be rejected based on the first line:
>
> from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> not:
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Bradshaw)
---------------------------IETF Mailing Draft---------------------------
-
(1) This header field should From (not not standardized
never appear in e-mail being followed by a for use in e-mail
sent, and should thus not appear colon)
in this memo. It is however
included, since people often ask
about it.
"not standardized Used to mark header fields defined only in RFC
for use in e-mail" 1036 for use in Usenet News. These header
fields have no standard meaning when appearing
in e-mail, some of them may even be used in
different ways by different software. When
appearing in e-mail, they should be handled
with caution. Note that RFC 1036, although
generally used as a de-facto standard for
Usenet News, is not an official IETF standard
or even on the IETF standards track.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This may or may not be justification for refusal, I can't say for sure.
My recommendation would be to avoid using potentially problematic
fields, of which From (without the colon) seems to definately qualify.
> If I set the visible name to mindspring.com, then the from looks like:
>
> from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Mindspring inserts a return path:
>
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> so my returned mail will go to another user.
Regarding lee.bradswhaw going to bradshaw, I thought I read that a dot
in this field was not standard and that it "may" be rewritten "if
necessary", however I cannot find that now. Again, my impression is
that this qualifies as a potentially problematic field entry, and it
would be best to avoid the dot.
I'm not an authority in this matter, I'm just calling it like I see it.
--
David Stern
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~kotsya
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
