-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, mike ledoux hath spake thusly: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 10:18:55AM -0500, Derek D. Martin wrote: > > That's interesting. I didn't realize mutt would do that. Though in > > THIS case, it SHOULD match, and should be considered verified by mutt. > > Note that the only difference between the e-mail address in my key and > > the e-mail address I sent the mail from is the "+mutt" detail, which > > is essentially a comment and does not affect mail delivery, as > > specified by RFC 822. > > Err, RFC 822 doesn't specify any detail about what the local-part of > the address should look like.
Ok, you're right. So, where the hell does the +detail come from? I just did a quick google search for a variety of combinations of "plus detail e-mail address" and turned up nothing. I could swear I'd seen it in an RFC. - -- Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - --------------------------------------------- I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8OxuNdjdlQoHP510RAkooAKC7beYUmNreou3mPnNhRRW0iqmAzgCgphp+ kFF4gaV6hMaIkl4AMMUK5iI= =tYQe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
