Is quoting extra "Return-paths" with ">" defined somewhere? (e.g. rfc?) I'd thought you decided to quote extra "return-path"s to make it unambiguous which one was the real return-path, to prevent looping, etc., as a boundary case.
I don't think it's really defined anywhere. It's one of those things that originated in the dark ages of ancient sendmail and mail.local
...
So the ">" character is a perfectly valid character in the field name.
The only character not allowed in the header field name is a colon.
End of the story.
Hi Sam,
Thanks for ammunition on the '>' quoting -- I agree 100% with you that it's Novell's problem and that Courier is correct here. Our client's pretty insistent that we get this working, though, and Novell hasn't been responding to their requests. With that in mind, I hope it's reasonable to look at modifying Courier to sidestep Novell's bugs ("be strict in what you send, and liberal in what you accept"), provided the changes don't cause *any* harm.
What other software expects ">Return-path"?
How would changing > to X- break anything?
best, Jeff
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
courier-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
