[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address
From: |
Ralph Corderoy |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address |
Date: |
Wed, 02 Sep 2015 18:44:01 +0100 |
Hi Ken,
> So ... any MUA that generates an obs-phrase is NOT RFC-compliant, but
> any MUA that doesn't interpret it is ALSO not RFC-compliant. So we
> can't really complain to others about RFC violations when we're not
> RFC compliant.
Course we can. We don't have to tell them we're having trouble.
Perhaps there are spam rankers out there that penalise such blatant RFC
5322 violations and we're doing them a favour.
> I took a look at our email parser (it's in sbr/mf.c, and boy, does
> that filename seem appropriate now, because that's what I shouted when
> I was reading it). I am unclear how it works at all for the trailing
> '.' case,
Perhaps
366 case LX_DOT: /* sigh (1) */
367 pers = add (".", pers);
368 goto more_phrase;
Cheers, Ralph.
- Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address, Ralph Corderoy, 2015/09/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address, Andy Bradford, 2015/09/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address, Ralph Corderoy, 2015/09/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address, Robert Elz, 2015/09/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address, Jeffrey Honig, 2015/09/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address, Ken Hornstein, 2015/09/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address, Robert Elz, 2015/09/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address, Ken Hornstein, 2015/09/03
- Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address, Andy Bradford, 2015/09/02
- Message not available
- Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address, Ralph Corderoy, 2015/09/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] repl doesn't like return address, Ken Hornstein, 2015/09/02