Charles M. Hannum writes:
>
> >Charles M. Hannum writes:
> >> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> ...
> >>
> >> This seems very wrong. The Delivered-To: address here isn't even
> >> correct; it should be something the actually exists -- either
> >> `[EMAIL PROTECTED]' or `[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
> >
> > Don't think of Delivered-To: as an address. Think of it as a unique
> > magic cookie derived from email delivery path. You can always
> > reconstruct the address if you know something about the delivery path,
> > and sometimes you may indeed have to.
>
> I don't need to be taught the religion, thanks. I'm already well
> aware of it.
But there are other people who are not. I didn't write you a private
reply, did I?
> And I don't buy it in this case. What if
> `[EMAIL PROTECTED]' *was* a valid, different
> address? It could falsely detect loops. Maybe that wouldn't make
> sense in this particular case, but I'm sure you can construct a more
> palatable case with little effort.
Then use a character in virtualdomains which is not legal in an email
address. I thought you didn't need to be taught the religion?
Repent, sinner!
> Also, that doesn't resolve my VERP problem.
Sorry, I thought it did. Why doesn't it?
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok |
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | #exclude <windows.h>
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX |
