Valdis wrote: > Looks good to me - but will some busticated software that assumes everything > after the @ is syntactically (if not semantically) a "hostname" get upset at > the + in there? (Personally, I don't care, all of my stuff just want a unique > string inside the <>, and if my stuff is busted I'll beat the snot out of > whoever > wrote it and then get it fixed ;)
I'll find out :-) Non-qualified hostnames do get used, even to this list. I looked at a small collection of spam and saw hardly any random "hostname" parts, but the sample is biased (it got through some filters) and very small. David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
